ISIS Claims Four U.S. Service Members Killed In IED Attack In Deir Ezzor

Donate

ISIS Claims Four U.S. Service Members Killed In IED Attack In Deir Ezzor

Illustrative image

On July 4, ISIS fighters ambushed a convoy of the US-led coalition in the village of Namliyah near the key town of al-Suwar in the eastern Deir Ezzor countryside, according to the ISIS-linked news agency Amaq. The convoy was reportedly hit with 18 IEDs during the ambush.

Amaq claimed that four service members of the U.S. Army were killed and several others were injured as a result of the ambush in Namliyah. However, the local news outlet Deir Ezzor 24 reported that only two personnel of the coalition were killed.

“Heavy shooting followed the explosion [of the IEDs], clashed erupted between ISIS fighters and personnel of the [US-led coalition] patrol, after that ISIS fighters managed to escape towards the [terrorist] organization’s positions in northern desert,” a local source told Deir Ezzor 24.

The US-led coalition and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has not commented on the incident yet. Usually, the coalition acknowledges such loses within days.

Whether it led to casualties or not, this ambush is the first major attack of ISIS cells in the SDF-held areas. The upcoming months will likely witness more similar attacks against the US-led coalition in Deir Ezzor and other governorates.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • RichardD

    I ran into a rock slide yesterday on an op 12 miles in from the pavement. Fortunately it happened in front of me on the way in rather than on the way out. I installed 100 watt halogen spot lights to help deal with an ambush. But I wasn’t expecting something like this.

    • RichardD

      It would take a winch to clear something like this. And I don’t have one on the Bronco ll yet.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d517bcd6e6cfd6faa34f3f4efbfe6dbcff3090cb59551ec91459889ccd278d0.jpg

      • Barba_Papa

        So…….

        An ISIS cell was responsible? ;-)

        • RichardD

          I don’t think that terrorists are limited to the terrestrial version.

        • RichardD

          Winning the Syria war and getting the mideast and planetary Jew problem cleaned up would be a big step in the right direction for making a safe and peaceful transition into becoming an ET race and civilization ourselves.

          • hamster

            “Winning the Syria war and getting the mideast and planetary Jew problem

            cleaned up would be a big step in the right direction for making a safe
            and peaceful transition into becoming an ET race and civilization
            ourselves.”

            Are you trolling or are you for real?

          • RichardD

            I’m for real.

          • hamster

            congratulations on having the biggest tinfoil hat on Southfront.

          • RichardD

            You haven’t disproven anything that I’ve written, you haven’t even tried. If you want to be a flat earther doing the ostrich pose, it’s your life.

          • hamster

            You haven’t provided any substantive evidence for any of your outlandish claims. Just propaganda tinfoil hat videos that simply restate the claims without any use of critical thinking. I could barely get thru 10 minutes of that garbage you posted, with its “ominous” epic music tracks and bullshit theories presented as “scientific”.

          • RichardD

            90% of the mass of the buildings is missing that would have been present in a conventional collapse. You don’t need a doctorate in advance materials science to see it.

            Dr. Wood is a qualified and competent expert using the scientific method, judicial process and judicial quality evidence. If you don’t want to analyse it in an objective rational manner. That’s your choice to remain ignorant.

            “Judy Wood Ph.D. is a materials scientist and former assistant professor of mechanical engineering who believes the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by a directed energy weapon.

            She earned her doctorate in materials engineering science from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1992. Her dissertation was on the topic of thermal stresses in bimaterial joints.

            From 1996-9 she was a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.

            From 1999 to 2006 she taught mechanical engineering at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina.

            Since 2006 she has been an independent researcher, lecturer and author. …

            Dr Wood’s observation of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 led her to the conviction that the towers did not collapse but were “dustified” by a directed energy weapon. According to her, dustification involves molecular dissociation and transmutation.

            In a whole series of lectures and media appearances[1], Wood has maintained that the debris pile was nowhere near tall enough to account for the aggregate mass of the towers and their contents. Rather, she states, the towers were pulverized[note 1] in mid-air and simply blew away on the breeze.

            On her web site, Wood presents a 41-point list of “The principal evidence that must be explained.” It includes (point 9) “The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth”, and (point 6) “The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.”

            – Judy Wood –

            https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judy_Wood

            I worked in heavy military electronics in my youth as a machinist and toolmaker building parts for components used in advanced electronic warfare and weapons systems, much of which is still classified.

            All that you have to do is look at the sequestered or off planet directed energy technology aspect of 911 to see the nexus between the topics that I provide comments on and the war on terror that I’m trying to help stop so that we can have a better future using these advanced technologies that are being misused by the Jew world order.

          • hamster

            “90% of the mass of the buildings is missing that would have been present

            in a conventional collapse. You don’t need a doctorate in advance
            materials science to see it.”

            Rofl. Ok… listen here and read the following very carefully. And please respond. I would love to see what your counter argument to this is. Because I am not going to waste time responding to a 100 different points of bullshit. So let’s address this so called “missing mass” nonsense.

            This whole thing 100% wrong. 90% of the “mass” of the buildings was not missing. In case morons like yourself and morons like “Judy Wood” didn’t know, there is a difference between “Mass” and “Volume”. This is something you should’ve learned in high school physics, if not earlier. 90% of the building’s mass was not “missing”. In fact, around 95% of the World Trade Center’s volume is actually empty space. Nearly all skyscrapers volume wise are mostly empty space inside. Don’t believe me, go to any tall office building or skyscraper, and take a look + measure it yourself.

            The majority of the “mass” is made of flooring and reinforced concrete. When you walk into any apartment building, what do you see when you open the door? Solid concrete? No buddy, you see a room, followed by another room, followed by more empty space in the living areas, the bathrooms, the office space, etc . Modern skyscrapers are not pyramids made of solid stone. They’re made so human beings can work and live in them.

            If you ever bothered going outside, traveling the world and seeing things for how they really are, instead of peddling “Jew World Order” conspiracy dribble, then you wouldn’t need a mechanical engineering or materials science degree to know that this particular claim is absolute rubbish. No “mass” from the collapsed building was missing.

            Learn a thing or two about skyscrapers (or any tall office building for that matter) before you talk out of your ass. In essence, the WTC building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high. The volume of the debris was substantially different form the volume of the building (it’s like fucking obvious. If you smash a soda can, its volume decreases, it’s mass does not, but it looks like the “size” of the soda can substantially decreased), but the mass remained largely the same, with maybe some tiny fraction dispersed in the air as smoke and dust.

            Please don’t peddle this retarded garbage to me again. I can’t verify Judy’s credentials, but either she is fucking retarded or intentionally, knowingly and willingly whipping up a firestorm of bullshit because of some underlying politically charged grievances.

            “In a whole series of lectures and media appearances[1], Wood has
            maintained that the debris pile was nowhere near tall enough to account
            for the aggregate mass of the towers and their contents. Rather, she
            states, the towers were pulverized[note 1] in mid-air and simply blew
            away on the breeze.”

            Yeah, sure, and how did this beloved “truf seeker” “Judy Wood” come to this conclusion? Where are her measurements? Where are her calculations? Did she survey the site? Oh right, she didn’t do any of that. Here’s how “irrefutable science” is supposed to work: Judy Wood, PhD is supposed to collect evidence according to whatever method, and then apply proper scientific analysis. Then she is supposed to present her findings in a carefully written document, in which she explains her methods and provides details of her analysis. Then she provides access to other scientists, who can then conduct their own studies. Then we compare results. If the results are consistent, we can begin to form a theory.

            As it stands, what she has is a hypothesis based primarily on her
            personal incredulity, and has collected a lot of photographs, to which
            she has applied a lot of “Why?” and “What if?” questions. That is not theory. She’s leaped from the starting point to an incredible conclusion that “Free Energy Weapons” were used to demolish the buildings at the
            World Trade Center.

            Sorry, but you’re gonna have to do a lot better than peddling me with this garbage. And I would suggest writing out your own arguments or summarizing someone else’s points in your own words rather than copy pasting an entire long ass quote and saying “here, debunk this, otherwise you choose to remain ignorant”. Yeah, sorry, doesn’t work like that.

          • RichardD

            You’re an idiot, I said mass, not volume, do you understand the difference? Mass is the material that the building is constructed of, volume is the spatial dimensions of the structure at completion.

            1,368 x 2 + 741 = 3477 feet of massive steel and concrete superstructure that the Twin Towers and Building 7 consisted of. There isn’t 3,477 feet of material on the ground.

            During any tall building collapse or demolition, the debris pile is approximately 1/8 the height of the original building. With the highest section being in the building’s footprint that tapers off to the edge of the radius of the debris pile. Which would be approximately 17 stories at the Twin Towers footprint tapering off to zero at the edge of the 600 foot radius where debris landed on the ground. That’s not present at the WTC site on 911.

          • hamster

            Holy shit, are you THAT fucking stupid? Did you not just read everything I fucking said or did you just read the first few sentences? Go back and reread what I said.

            I know you said “mass” and not “volume”, but you’re DESCRIBING dimensions of volume when you are talking about the dimensions, such as the height and the spread of the area of the of the collapsed debris. Things like “height” and “width” and “area” are dimensions of VOLUME… not MASS.

            There is no such thing as “volume in the sense that you’re using it”. I am using volume as a descriptive physical characteristic. There’s no other valid way of using the term. Words have meanings and definitions, it’s about time you learned to use them correctly.

            What the fuck would that even mean? There is no specific “sense” of volume. There is just volume and it has a very specific definition in the physical sciences and engineering. This is something you should’ve learned in BASIC geometry since at least middle school. It has a very specific definition that is used throughout the physical sciences. Sure, you and meth head Judy Wood “said” mass, but you’re USING the term incorrectly. Every time you morons open your mouth and say “mass” and then are asked to expound on it, you start using terms that are related to volume. Go look up what the term “mass” means before you start barking at me again about the “height” of a building or the “height” of debris.

            “Not the spatial dimensions of the building materials used to construct the building.”

            The spacial dimensions of the materials used to construct the building is also called volume. The VOLUME of the MATERIALS in the building is the same as the VOLUME of the debris. However, the VOLUME of BUILDING consists of MORE than just the materials. It also consists of EMPTY SPACE dispersed within the dimensions of the BUILDING.

            “1,368 x 2 + 741 = 3477 feet of massive steel and concrete superstructure that the Twin Towers and Building 7 consisted of.”

            This is the HEIGHT of the fucking BUILDINGS. The height alone doesn’t tell us ANYTHING about the density or the volume of the MATERIAL that the buildings are made of.

            Go LEARN your fucking terms. Go take a BASIC fucking physics and chemistry course.

            And why the fuck are you ADDING the HEIGHT to talk about the CONSISTENCY of the buildings? The buildings do not “CONSIST” (a property of the materials and mass) of 3477 “feet” (a description of one dimension of volume). That whole statement is completely incoherent. You cannot determine the volume of the materials in a building by simply looking at the height of an actual building

            “There isn’t 3,477 feet of material on the ground.”

            Why would there be 3477 “feet” of material on the ground? That doesn’t make any fucking sense. If you’re talking about a pile of debris laying on a surface, you can only measure its mass (by weighing the debris), its volume in CUBIC footage (by compacting the debris and measuring its width, length, and height), or you can measure the approximate SQUARE footage of the debris field.

            You cannot look at one dimension, the HEIGHT of the BUILDING (rather than the total height, width, and length of the MATERIALS that the building is made out of without any air taking up space of volume). Go learn some basic geometry, then take an entry level physics course and maybe a chemistry course. This is usually covered in the very first 3 or 4 chapters of any high school or college level textbook.

            That you would do something as retarded as “adding” the heights of buildings to try and demonstrate the “amount” of a material just shows your severe lack of education. Did you even graduate high school?

            “During any tall building collapse or demolition, the debris pile is approximately 1/8 the height of the original building.”

            WRONG. Just because methhead Judy Wood says so doesn’t make it the case. The “height” of the debris pile depends on a large number of factors, not least of which is the design and dimensions of the building (why the fuck would you compare a stadium like the “Kingdome” to a fucking skyscraper anyways? That’s completely apples to oranges and irrelevant.).

            You also need to take into account the kinetic force of the collapsing building and material, the density of the materials, whether or not it is a controlled demolition. Actual controlled demolitions have almost NO ejecta and are ingeniously
            free from almost all collateral damage if done properly. The ruins of WTC look NOTHING like any controlled demolition. They did
            not fall in their own footprint (which is a measure of AREA aka SQUARE FOOTAGE. The debris field spread for
            blocks and damaged over 40 other buildings. Huge junks of the facade
            simply fell outwards not straight down to its own footprint like in the Kingdome, as Miss Methhead Judy claims.

            In that
            respect it looked nothing like a controlled demolition. There is absolutely NO substantiation that during ANY collapse of a tall building that the debris must be “approximately” 1/8th of the height. That is complete and utter unsubstantiated rubbish and entirely unscientific. The only thing that we can “approximate” in any sort of structural collapse is the VOLUME of the METARIAL (not the HEIGHT of the material) that the building is made of (which remains almost constant, save for a tiny fraction of dust and smoke), or the measured MASS of the material (debris) that the building was made of. The observed HEIGHT of a BUILDING is virtually irrelevant here.

            Again, I suggest you learn the terms, learn them very well, and learn how to calculate them:

            HEIGHT
            WIDTH
            LENGTH
            AREA
            VOLUME
            MASS
            DENSITY

            “FEET” is a one dimensional measure of distance. There cannot be “feet” used to describe the “amount” of a certain material. If I say my house is made of 30 feet of wood to a construction worker, he won’t know what the fuck I am talking about.

            “With the highest section being in the building’s footprint, that tapers
            off to the edge of the radius of the debris pile. Which would be
            approximately 164 feet high at the Twin Towers footprint,”

            WRONG. Again, meth head Judy Wood doesn’t know what the fuck she is talking about and neither do you. You’re just repeating the same garbage she is saying. There are no physical laws or barriers that suggest that the debris of a collapsed building “must” be 1/8th of the height of the building. The kingdome fell completely into it’s own footprint (it was a conrolled demolition) and it was also made of different material and had a different density within the volume of the space it occupied. Sorry, but this 1/8th rule exists only in your head. No structural engineer, demolition specialist or construction worker would ever accept such a ludicrous claim. “Height” is virtually irrelevant without a discussion of the numerous other physical characteristics of any physical structure.

            “tapering off
            to zero at the edge of the radius where debris landed on the ground.

            Wrong, the “radius” is not where the “debris” landed form the collapse, but from where the current of debris and dust that got pushed outward by the force of the collapse finally ended up. You cannot deduce the final “radius” of the debris based on where debris originally landed. If I were to throw you a ball and it landed on the ground, but continued rolling towards you due to the kinetic energy behind it, the distance between me and where the ball ends up could be (and very likely is in most situations) very different form the distance between me and where the ball makes it’s first bounce. If millions of chunks of debris are hitting the ground at a high velocity, they tend to bounce off the ground and be pushed outwards from both their own kinetic energy as well as the accumulated dispersed energy of the surrounding debris.

            If you pour a cog of crude oil onto your kitchen counter, the eventual square foot area of the oil spill has a significantly higher radius than the exact area of the counter you are pouring the oil on. Same thing with sand. You could be pouring sand onto a surface through a funnel approximately 1 inch wide, but that doesn’t mean that the diameter of the pile of sand that ends up on the surface is going to be 1 inch (or half inch radius).

            “That’s not present at the WTC site on 911.”

            Because it doesn’t have to be. You and meth head Judy are making a series of unsubstantiated assertions about what “should” or “shouldn’t” be present at the WTC collapse that are completely devoid of any scientific backing and wholly lacking in any sort of measurement.

          • RichardD

            You’re an irrational liar and a head case ignoring the fact that when a building comes down there is a pile of rubble commensurate with the amount of material that the building is constructed of. It’s not there in the WTC collapse like it should be.

          • hamster

            No I am not an “irrational liar”, i Just completely took apart every fucking detail of your so called “scientific evidence” and demonstrated that your entire argument is based on a flawed non-understanding of basic physical phenomena, unsupported assertions, and unsubstantiated premises. I am not ignoring any “facts”. I know what the facts are, but you are misrepresenting and misinterpreting the facts.

            Like your little retarded “adding” of the “height” of buildings that mostly comprised of empty space inside to try and make an argument about the “volume” or the “mass” of the materials that the building is made of. Just because you don’t know how to fucking read or make simple calculations or get your panties in a bunch because youre 100% wrong doesn’t mean that I’m an “irrational liar”. You’re just a clueless low IQ moron whose never had a basic education in high school level mathematics and science or for that matter in a thing called “critical thinking”.

            “when a building comes down there is a pile of rubble commensurate with
            the amount of material that the building is constructed of.”

            Yes, no shit. But read that very carefully. The AMOUNT of the MATERIAL that the building is constructed of.

            And what is this AMOUNT of MATERIAL that building is constructed of? You have yet to provide me the calculations of the AMOUNT of MATERIAL that the building is constructed of. Instead, you have provided me some added one dimensional measurement of DISTANCE (“HEIGHT”) of the BUILDING itsself. Which again, as I demonstrated above, is completely IRRELEVANT. 3477 feet is not “amount of material”.

            “It’s not there in the WTC collapse like it should be.”

            Yes there is. But you and methhead Judy decided not to measure that. Instead you measure the height of the building (which is completely irrelevant since most of the space within the building is empty). Then you go into asserting and spouting off some unsubstantiated “1/8th” height of “ANY collapsed building” and using the controlled demolition of the Kingdome as some sort of irrelevant example.

            And you expect people to take your seriously? ROFL.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            Half of the building in that picture is still standing you fucking idiot. It looks like a few upper floors collapsed but much of the foundation is still intact.

            This is also not a skyscraper, its a building in Tehran. We do not know the particular dimensions or density of the material inside the building in relation to the air, office space and living space. So we cannot make a comparison.

            Furthermore the dimensions of this building are much different (the width and length in relation to the height are much greater, meaning it is less likely to collapse as a pancake. If you melted down all the steel and concrete, the pile of rubble would be considerably smaller. Furthermore, this building had a fire, it did not have a jetliner smash into it at over 500 mph, explosive jet fuel nor did the building have a mass of 500,000 tons collapsing unto it because a few floors were missing from impact.

            Apples to oranges, grasping at straws as usual, are we?

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            And what precisely did I lie about? I see a burning building in Tehran. I don’t see what the relevance is.

            I have yet to see your calculations for what “amount” of material the WTC was made of. IF you had arranged all the steel beams in a rectangular pattern all tucked together, as well as all the concrete slabs, all tucked together, what would this “amount” be? What would the volume of the building materials, or for that matter their mass be? That’s the only way you can talk about “amount” in any way where we can measure it and then discuss what is or isn’t true.

            You cannot point to photographs and proclaim “its not SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THAT OMG”.

          • RichardD

            That half of the 17 story building is still standing.

          • hamster

            Yeah, no shit shirlock. That’s the whole fucking point. If you were to melt down the entire structure into it’s constituent materials, without leaving any spaces or airpockets, or structural designs intact… if you were to just melt everything down and put the melted mixture into a large rectangular “box” of some sort, the volume would be substantially smaller than the so called “collapsed” building which is still half standing.

            Also, 17 story buildings are significantly more dense than most modern skyscrapers. So it’s an apples to oranges comparison.

          • RichardD

            You got caught lying again.

          • hamster

            Nope, just systematically debunking your bullshit and you don’t have an answer to anything I say. Because I exposed you as an ignorant hick who didnt even graduate high school.

          • RichardD

            More lies

          • hamster

            You got annihilated with facts by someone who is significantly more educated and thorough in their analysis than you, and this is your response.

            Thanks for playing, come again.

          • RichardD

            Your analysis is ignoring the FACT that 110 stories of building material didn’t end up in a pile in those empty footprints and surrounding area. So who’s making a fool out of themselves fool?

          • hamster

            No my analysis is not ignoring that fact. I’ve already explained to you in my earlier response that “stories” is not a valid measurement or material volume or mass. A typical “story” of any high rise building is largely comprised of empty space. The WTC were mostly hollow inside (their whole point was to serve as spacious office space). You cannot measure the volume of materials by counting the number of “stories” in a building.

            Again, I am not “ignoring” anything. Virtually all of the material consisting of the steel beams that were a part of the WTC ended up both within the footprints and the fairly extensive surrounding area, and virtually all of the reinforced concrete is concentrated in a slightly large area of coverage, with the more granular and fine matter being dispersed even farther from the center for many many blocks and covering most of lower Manhattan with a thick layer of granular dust, while the larger, more intact chunks were arranged more compactly closer to the site of collapse, but still significantly larger than the “footprint”.

            The pile is there. That you and meth head Judy “think” that the pile isn’t big enough is irrelevant. You havent shown me the calculations for how large the volume of the collapsed pile of material should be. Show me your calculations.

          • RichardD

            Show me the pile of 1 million tons of building material collapsed on the ground in the twin towers footprints and surrounding area. So far you’ve shown me zilch, nada, nothing, zero. Because you can’t. I’ve looked at dozens of pictures from aerial views to close ups of rescue workers taken on 911 and shortly thereafter before the clean up started.

            There isn’t 1 million tons of building materials there on the ground in that 1 city block surrounded by buildings containing the implosion. And it didn’t all end up in 6 stories of basements, most of which outside of the footprints and even a lot in the footprints are intact as pictures and videos show.

            As far as the dust cloud, all implosions have them and leave large debris piles. Yes the WTC cloud is abnormally large, which if anything adds credence to Dr. Woods work.

          • hamster

            “Show me the pile of 1 million tons of building material collapsed on the
            ground in the twin towers footprints and surrounding area. So far
            you’ve shown me zilch, nada, nothing, zero. Because you can’t. I’ve
            looked at dozens of pictures from aerial views to close ups of rescue
            workers taken on 911 and shortly thereafter before the clean up started.”

            I have shown you plenty but you seem to have a distorted view of what a “million tons” of rubble “should” look like. Youre just a random retard making an unsubstantiated assertion.

            Here are some more. Note the different vantage pounts and how the tiny streaks of red are painted over one individual human being.

            The longer streaks of red lines are a comparison of the gargantuan piles of debris.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86bface09151fe203508195fc0da5e81f3fa3347016dcf0170230bfd6bbca888.png ://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d014144e89093fbe282d66f1455e4ef60487e45a1309755ca4b0a85b9bed11b7.png

            This one shows two gigantic piles that are at least 75 feet high.

            “There isn’t 1 million tons of building materials there on the ground in
            that 1 city block surrounded by buildings containing the implosion.”

            Yes there is. You’re just a stubborn blind sack of shit and an illiterate hillbilly.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/36c5a896e335e3d7b79183a41b2ebd7d87cd1603b735af5e5ade0012efd9d8e6.png

            “And it didn’t all end up in 6 stories of basements, most of which
            outside of the footprints and even a lot in the footprints are intact as
            pictures and videos show.”

            We’ve already established multiple times that footprints of buildings are irrelevant, as the majority of the rubble isnt contained within the footprints, but dispersed over a surface area approximately 6 times the size of the area of the footprints due to the cumulative kinetic energy of massive amounts of debris striking the ground and pushing surrounding debris outwards. I have proven this to you with both logic, scientific explanations and evidence. You have yet to respond. It is because you cant because you are wrong.

            “And it didn’t all end up in 6 stories of basements,”

            It didn’t ALL end up in the subterranean levels but a substantial portion of it did, which can account for some areas of the uneven debris field being under 20 feet high in certain places.

            “As far as the dust cloud, all implosions have them and leave large
            debris piles. Yes the WTC cloud is abnormally large, which if anything
            adds credence to Dr. Woods work.”

            It doesn’t add any credence to her so called “work”. The pulverized concrete was spread out over GROUND level in Lower Manhattan, it did not dissipate in mid air. A substantial portion of the concrete got broken up as a result of massive weight crashing down upon it, which resulted in the kinetic energy at the impact down at the ground level to disperse the soot throughout lower Manhattan.

          • RichardD

            You’re a scammer. There are no 75 foot tall piles of debris. At most they’re 30 or 40 foot high, which is what the entire 15 acre debris pile should be. Not a just a few acres.

          • hamster

            How am I a scammer? A scammer is someone who uses trickery or deceit to steal from another. I haven’t stolen anything from anyone during the course of this discussion.

            “There are no 75 foot tall piles of debris.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d014144e89093fbe282d66f1455e4ef60487e45a1309755ca4b0a85b9bed11b7.png

            “At most they’re 30 or 40 foot high, which is what the entire 15 acre debris pile should be. Not a just a few acres.”

            Wrong, I’ve already done the calculations for you over here:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/southfront/isis_claims_four_us_service_members_killed_in_ied_attack_in_deir_ezzor/#comment-3983612764

            I will be awaiting a thorough rebuttal to this particular response that I posted. I won’t hold my breath though.

          • RichardD

            “The pile is there.”

            The pile isn’t there, that’s the whole issue. In fact there isn’t anywhere near 1 million tons of building material in the entire debris field contained in 1 city block. If you disagree than show me the pictures with your weight and cubic estimates and add it all up to 1 to 1.5 million tons of building materials just for the twin towers alone, let alone building 7 and all of the other buildings on that block. I’ve never seen anyone do it and I seriously doubt that you’l be able to.

            That 30 foot pile that you’ve shown, which is the biggest that I’ve seen, even if it wasn’t made during clean up, might weigh a few thousand tons. Lets be generous and say 5,000, which is high. That’s less than 1 %, in fact it’s less than 1/2 of 1 %. Show me 200 more piles that size in the debris field that I provided the illustration of. THEY’RE NOT THERE!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b94c0b5c9d1e5d9f7d9f31046fe28087c573d41afda74fdc29c51a2d9c94c031.png

            http://911review.com/attack/wtc/groundzero.html

          • hamster

            “The pile isn’t there, that’s the whole issue. In fact there isn’t
            anywhere near 1 million tons of building material in the entire debris
            field contained in 1 city block.”

            The pile is there.

            Here is a good image. The little tiny red streak that the arrow is pointing to that is contained inside the circle is just one person.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/36c5a896e335e3d7b79183a41b2ebd7d87cd1603b735af5e5ade0012efd9d8e6.png

            The majority of that pile is well over 18 feet high in most places within the debris field.

            An top down aerial view of the wreckage is here. The previous image is focusing on just the top right corner of it.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d9a7730c61e431538e3c1fd7a6932d75cc44e4c10c1783607c0d6e896f26c90.jpg

            “If you disagree than show me the pictures with your weight and cubic
            estimates and add it all up to 1 to 1.5 million tons of building
            materials just for the twin towers alone, let alone building 7 and all
            of the other buildings on that block. I’ve never seen anyone do it and I
            seriously doubt that you’l be able to.”

            How can I show you “pictures” of weight and cubic volume estimates? Pictures are not 3 dimensional, so one cannot measure “volume” and one certainly cannot measure mass without a mass measurement tool. The mass of all the wreckage that has been taken out of the WTC site has already been measured to be at least 1.6 million tons with final estimates coming out to 1.8 million tons.

            I’ve already demonstrated to you that the wreckage surface area is approximately 6 times greater than the footprint of the towers. This means that instead of of 47 yards tall, the average height of debris would be 23.5 feet high if and ONLY if it was

            1) evenly disbursed throughout the wreckage area.

            2) none of it fell into the subterranean levels

            3) none of the concrete was pulverized as it hit the ground and spread out over the city.

            Of course we clearly saw that all 3 of those things happened, so it makes absolute sense that parts of the wreckage would not have an average height of 23.5 feet (and as we can clearly see by some of the picture, certain portions of the wreckage are considerably higher, as there is an uneven distribution, like the would be with virtually any uncontrolled collapse).

            You have not challenged any of this except frothing at the mouth wildly claiming “I DONT SEE IT!!!! DURRRR I DONT SEE A MILLION TONS OF WRECKAGE!!!!”. If you don’t see it, it means youre fucking blind. Tens of thousands of new yorkers and workers at the WTC site saw it. I’ll take their word over the irrational incredulity of a low IQ uneducated hick on the internet named “richardD” or a recluse stuttering meth head (former) professor who doesn’t understand basic scientific terminology and can’t hold her own under scrutiny.

            https://imgur.com/a/qheIOgo

          • RichardD

            47 yards is solid concrete, not demolition debris. Salvage contractors use the 1 ton per cubic yard estimate every day for building removal. You’re showing 5 or 6 acres at maybe 20 feet average depth. That’s 125,000 to 150,000 tons, not 1 million. The debris from two 500,000 ton skyscrapers isn’t on the ground.

          • hamster

            What the fuck are you blabbering about.

            Demolition debris in this case is fucking MADE largely of concrete (and some amount of steel). “Demolition debris” is not a material with a given density. Demolition debris are simply debris from a demolished structure. You cannot give a generic universal “estimate” to demolition debris.

            I completely demolished whatever this “industry demoliton standards” crap you tried to pull on me right here, where I went ahead and systematically dismantled virtually all of your calculations and supplemented them with my own:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/southfront/isis_claims_four_us_service_members_killed_in_ied_attack_in_deir_ezzor/#comment-3983612764

            And by the way, I looked into this a little more and I’m getting the sense (no surprise here), that you are talking EVEN MORE out of your ass!

            I cannot find any relevant building materials with a mass of 1 ton corresponding to approximately 1 cubic yard of the material’s volume.

            The only thing thing that I can that has anything remotely close to that sort of relationship is “top soil” used for landscaping.

            http://americantopsoil.com/FAQ.htm

            (Question: How much does topsoil weigh? Answer: One cubic yard of topsoil generally weighs about one ton (2000 pounds).

            http://summitgravel.com/calculator.html

            (Screened topsoil 1:1
            -1 cubic yard = 1 ton

            Unscreened topsoil 1:1.3
            -1 cubic yard = 1 1/3 tons )

            Sorry, but “salvage contractors” do not ESTIMATE debris of collapsed buildings to be 1 ton equaling the volume of 1 square yard.

            Maybe that measure is used for estimating topsoil for suburban landscaping projects.

            Wow, you really outdid yourself with the level of bullshit on this one, pal.

            Skyscrapers and modern buildings in cities are not made of topsoil, you dumb fucking landscaping hillbilly degenerate piece of SHIT! Get the fuck out of here, hick.

          • RichardD

            Every other vertical collapse of a tall building in history has left the largest amount of debris in the foot print. With decreasing amounts in the surrounding area the further that you get from the footprint. That didn’t happen on 911 with the WTC buildings. Those foot prints are practically devoid of building materials, as is the entire site. Show me a single tall building collapse in history with empty footprints like 911. You can’t, because 911 was different.

          • hamster

            “Every other vertical collapse of a tall building in history has left the largest amount of debris in the foot print.”

            For starters, every other collapse of tall building in history has been:

            1) A controlled demolition (which this wasn’t), which means that whole INTENDED point is to make sure that the vast majority of the debris ends up within the footprint.

            2) A building whose height, mass, density, and various dimensions were not remotely comparable to those of the WTC.

            3) Had a far smaller height to width ratio, which is a crucial factor that I pointed out earlier in my previous responses and made a simply sand castle analogy for, something that you conveniently ignored.

            “With decreasing amounts in the surrounding area the further that you get from the footprint.”

            Again, I already went over this. This is only true for controlled demolitions and for buildings who’s lengths and widths are comparable to the height. The whole point of a controlled demolition is to ensure that the majority of the pile is reasonably contained within the footprint, and that any excess on the peripheries is minimized. In an uncontrolled collapse of any structure (or for that matter, any brittle phenomena), the distribution of debris is far more uneven and haphazard. It is not necessarily the case that a greater amount of it would be concentrated near the epicenter. That is a completely bullshit assertion you and meth head Judy pulled out of their ass.

            “That didn’t happen on 911 with the WTC buildings.”

            Unsupported assertion. It didn’t “need” to happen with the WTC buildings. Your idea of what “should’ve” happened isn’t based on a thorough analysis of reality.

            “Those foot prints are practically devoid of building materials, as is the entire site.”

            Wrong, there is substantial debris all over the site. I have yet to hear a valid basis for much “more” debris there “needs” to be and what its supposed dimensions ought to be. That’s where measurements and calculations come in handy, something you’ve refused to do (instead you went about “adding” the heights of 3 buildings, as if thats supposed to mean something).

            “Show me a single tall building collapse in history with empty footprints like 911.”

            Show me this “empty footprint” that you see in your head, because I see a pile of rubble. The only thing you’ve shown me is a zoomed in picture of a person standing facing some rubble, which essentially doesn’t show me anything related to your point. Furthermore, show me any other example in history of an uncontrolled collapse of a skyscraper with dimensions and internal structure similar to the WTC.

            ” You can’t, because 911 was different.”

            9/11 was different, which is why comparing the complete uncontrolled collapse of a 110 story skyscraper that is mostly comprised of empty space to the partial collapse of a regular apartment building from a fire in Tehran or to the controlled demolition of a stadium who’s dimensions are wildly different from that of the twin towers in order to try and assert that something “should have” happened a certain way, without substantiating it with any measurements, detailed verifiable observations or calculations is a fool’s errand, and it seems like you and that stuttering hag Judy Wood are the fools here.

          • RichardD

            If you can’t see from the videos that the twin towers came down directly over their foot prints and the immediate vicinity, then you’re either blind or lying. Obviously your lying. One comparatively small 30 foot high pile of debris, when the surrounding areas have even less, doesn’t even begin to account for 1 million tons of construction material. Your evidence is proving not disproving Dr. Woods work.

          • hamster

            I am not saying that the twin towers did not come down over their footprints or their immediate vicinity. Go carefully reread what I said. I said that the dispersion of the debris occurred well outside of the initial impacts of the debris because the kinetic force of the collapse forced a substantial portion of the debris outwards AFTER impact with the ground.

            This is why I used the analogy of pouring sand or oil through a funnel, which demonstrates that falling material does not need to remain within the surface area of the initial impact of the material against a platform. If you pour sand through a funnel, the size of the funnel may limit the width of the falling material, but once it hits the ground, the sand forms a pile and the pile disperses to a surface area that is much greater than just the footprint or the immediate vicinity of impact. A large portion of the debris also bounces and gets pushed out even further by the force of other debris falling around it. This is common sense and has been thoroughly documented and demonstrated.

            “One comparatively small 30 foot high pile of debris, when the
            surrounding areas have even less, doesn’t even begin to account for 1
            million tons of construction material.”

            Of course it does, when you factor in the dispersed surface area of the rubble, the pulverized concrete, and the subterranean levels. Everything checks out. 1 million tons of construction material is easily accounted for when you take all these 3 factors into account instead of stubbornly pandering the pseudoscientific nonsense of “footprints”.

            “our evidence is proving not disproving Dr. Woods work.”

            Dr. Woods didn’t do any “work”. She cobbled a bunch of selected photographs and made some erroneous assumptions without including relevant factors in her so called “analysis”. You cannot solely focus on a one dimensional measure of distance and somehow convert that to some speculated measure of mass while making some irrelevant comparison to structures that are entirely different.

            If methhead Judy was in charge of engineering any landmarks or buildings, we wouldn’t have any modern landmarks or buildings due to her sheer incompetence and lack of understanding of basic fundamentals of physics and measurement.

          • RichardD

            You lied about half of the building still standing when it isn’t. You’re spamming this thread with your lies and nonsense.

          • hamster

            Nope, I did not lie. The building in that picture is in a state of partial collapse and it is not a skyscraper. There are still large pockets of air and empty space in the partially collapsed structure. It did not have nearly as much force or weight pressed down upon it as a skyscraper, and it’s dimensions are entirely different (that building, just like the bullshit Kingdome comparison, has much greater length and width dimensions in comparison to its height, meaning there is a greater probability like a larger portion of the debris would be confined to the footprint of a building).

            If the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas were to collapse, you’d expect a significant, if not a majority of it’s debris to be confined to an area within it’s footprint. If the Burj Khalifa in Dubai were to collapse, the majority of the debris would be spread out in a radius far greater than it’s base. If you were to melt down all the steel and grind down all the concrete into a fine powder, the total volume of it would be significantly different from the half collapsed debris pile. If you look at the picture of the collapse, and look at the adjacent buildings on the very left side of the picture, there are at least 3 stories showing, and possibly 2 more hidden from view.

            And again, what are the internal dimensions of the Plasco building? Do you have any data or information on that? There is a reason Iranians are not known for constructing skyscrapers. In order to construct a particularly large skyscraper, you need to be able to create a large amount of living and office space volume with a minimal amount of mass, and whatever minimal mass you do use has to be made out of or reinforced by lightweight materials that have large tensile strength, such as steel.

            Again, you’re comparing an old apartment building whose height doesn’t even appear to be twice its width, and whose dimensions are unknown, and whose partially collapsed frame appears to be 4 stories tall to a building that has a much greater mass, and whose height is nearly 7 times greater than it’s width. Again, like I told you in an earlier post, go do the experiment with the sand castles that I described and you will instantly see how foolish it is to assume that all building collapses “must” have the majority of their debris in the footprint. That is a completely unsubstantiated claim to make(as usual) and cannot be justified with any physical laws or theories.

          • RichardD

            You lied when you falsely claimed that half of the building was still standing when it’s clearly not. And you lied about Dr. Wood being a meth head. You’re a lying fanatical extremist, idiot and head case ignoring reality in an effort to promote your false narrative.

          • hamster

            There is no “false narrative” I am promoting, I am simply promoting objective scientific observation and analysis, one that is based on actual measurements and calculations and that are based on the scentific concensus of everyone who was involved in the actual cleanup and recovery efforts at the actual site, not some random hillybilly named “RichardD” or some stuttering methhead former assistant professor who cannot even articulate basic physical phenomena.

            The pile of rubble in the Tehran building appears to be at least 4 or 5 stories tall when you compare it to the surrounding buildings. This suggests one of two things:

            1) Either it did not completely collapse and hence has a porous structure within the rubble, meaning a large portion of the volume of the rubble is empty space (meaning the density of the collapsed building materials are not sufficiently granular). If this is the case, then one cannot come to any conclusion regarding the mass of the rubble by just looking at the height. Height is completely irrelevant measure if large portions of the rubble are porous and standing.

            2) The building in Tehran had an unusually large ratio of mass in relation to living space. This means every 20 foot room surrounded by 4 to 5 foot thick walls, 4 to 5 foot thick floors and ceilings. If that is the case then it is completely inappropriate to compare this building to the world trade center.

            Furthermore, as I have pointed out and as you have ignored twice in a row already, the ratio of the height of a building to it’s width is a major factor in determining what portion of a collapsed structure ends up in a footprint area. Again, the width to height ratio of the Tehran buildings and the Kingdome are significantly smaller than the same ratio for the WTC. The higher a building is relative to its width, the less likely any substantial portion of its debris ends up being confined in the footprint.

            Furthermore the velocity of material falling from a height of 17 stories is significantly smaller than the velocity of objects falling from 110 stories. The velocity of the wreckage when it hits ground level is a lot higher for a skyscraper like the WTC. Wreckage that falls from that kind of height has much greater kinetic energy and hence strikes the ground with much greater force, which results in greater pulverization of the material and a greater area of effect when it comes to the dispersion of the debris.

            This is basic shit that you should’ve learned in elementary physics when you were covering Newtonian “laws” and kinematics.

            I demonstrated that to you with 2 analogies and a thorough explanation of the difference between height (a measure of one dimensional distance) and volume and/or mass ( a measure of the “amount” of something).

            IF you don’t care to learn, you have absolutely no place to be crying about others being “ignorant” or “unscientific”.

          • RichardD

            You’re a habitual liar, you’re credibility deficit makes anything that you claim suspect. Out of a 17 story building there were 2 stories of collapsed material and part of an exterior wall assembly hanging above that. Not half of the building still standing as you falsely claim. You’ve lied continuously about this and Dr. Wood being a meth head. The two story debris pile is 1/8 the height of the original structure, as are other building demolitions, whether controlled or uncontrolled where the building collapses vertically into it’s footprint and surrounding area.
            http://cdn-sabreakingnews.365.co.za/content/uploads/2017/01/19132421/Plasco-building-collapse.jpg

          • hamster

            “You’re a habitual liar, you’re credibility deficit makes anything that you claim suspect.”

            There’s nothing to “suspect”. Everything that I have posted can be verified. Go open up a geometry, physics, or chemistry textbook.

            “Out of a 17 story building there were 2 stories of collapsed material and part of an exterior wall assembly hanging above that.”

            That looks like at least 4 or 5 stories high. And again, as I have explained to you, the porous nature of the debris from this building suggets that it is not entirely collapsed to the same granular state as the WTC. I have already demonstrated why this may be the case by pointing out that the 2 structures may have different densities of material in relation to living space, that the height to width ratio of the WTC is much greater (whereas in this building it does not even appear to approach a ratio of 2 to 1), and that the force of the debris from a 110 story skyscraper of debris hitting the ground is significantly higher than the force from the collapse of a wider 17 story building, and hence the object with much greater velocity and kinetic energy would hit the ground with a much greater force and hence you would have much greater dispersion of debris. If the WTC was 1350 ft in height AND 1350 feet in width AND 1350 feet in length, then it would be much more plausible for a much greater percentage of the debris to be confined to what would then be a much greater footprint.

            If the volume of a building is small, but the base area (“footprint”) is large by comparison, then you can expect more debris to be confined to the base area. IF the volume of a building is large, but the base area by comparison is small by comparison, then you can expect a much greater proportion of it’s debris to land outside the footprint.

            This is 100% verifiable and reproducible with almost any solid, granular, collapsible object, and nothing you say can change this. This is not opinion, this is demonstrable, verifiable fact that you can’t and won’t have an answer for.

            No amount of bullshit on your end is going to change this.

            “The two story debris pile is 1/8 the height of the original structure,
            as are other building demolitions, whether controlled or uncontrolled
            where the building collapses vertically into it’s footprint and
            surrounding area.”

            Again, as demonstrated 3 times already, the “height” of a debris pile is irrelevant when you factor in

            a) the dispersion of a debris pile (caused by greater cumulative kinetic energy from the greater velocity of higher falling objects).

            b) the ratio of the relative diameter of the footprint of a building to it’s height

            c) the compactness aka density of the debris pile, which is largely affected by the degree of pulverization and granularity.

            You do not have an answer to account for any of these 3 factors, so you talking out of your ass and making irrelevant comparisons.

            Let me repeat. You do not have an answer that takes into account or explains these 3 factors. And you never will. So as it stands, I am correct and you are wrong. And will remain correct and you will remain wrong until you take into account these 3 factors.

          • RichardD

            You’re proving Dr. Woods correct and yourself wrong with your observation that a 17 story building with a tiny fraction of the mass of the twin towers leaves a substantial debris pile in an uncontrolled implosion. While the biggest debris pile that you can find from the twin towers collapse isn’t any bigger than the Plasco building.

          • hamster

            No, I am proving meth head Dr. Woods incorrect by correctly pointing out that the a) the ratio of the base (the footprint) of the 2 buildings to their volume are wildly different, and have demonstrated multiple times that the greater the ratio of volume to footprint the greater the amount of debris would be dispersed outside of the footprint
            b) that the mass of the world trade center as well as the velocity with which the debris fell (from a much much greater height) translates into much higher kinetic energy when it hits the ground, when translates to greater dispersion of debris and also results in greater pulverization of debris, and hence the wreckage of the 17 story building in Tehran is not particularly compact.

            c) I’ve also demonstrated that neither you nor judy wood is willing to provide any data with regard to the structure and composition of the 17 story building. This is duly noted.

          • RichardD

            There isn’t 110 stories of massive steel and concrete superstructure in this footprint and immediate vicinity like there is in every other tall building vertical collapse. Those are sections of exterior wall sticking up from their foundation. The entire area in the vicinity of those fragments should be covered with thousands of tons of debris dozens of feet high like every other tall building vertical collapse in history.

            Your ignoring that reality proves that you’re a liar and fanatical extremist.
            https://morganreynolds.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ambulance_survived_wtc1_full.jpg

          • hamster

            “There isn’t 110 stories of massive steel and concrete superstructure in

            this footprint and immediate vicinity like there is in every other tall
            building vertical collapse.”

            Wrong. The mass (or the volume for that matter) of the materials used to construct the world trade center are not measured in “stories”. That picture that you posted doesn’t even remotely show the footprint and immediate vicinity. It doesn’t even show the outer perimeter of the debris pile.

            Cherry picking some zoomed in picture of some tiny fraction of the debris site isn’t going to prove your point.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e94d44ae5e58cb1d5068c3683b44f23bf822104490c7cb663c3e574a612b3836.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c68fc43edd68eae4aac5623ae427c2b55a09762e1473d7f6e0af3690d82065e.jpg

            “The entire area in the vicinity of those fragments should be covered
            with a debris pile containing thousands of tons of building materials
            dozens of feet high like every other tall building vertical collapse in
            history.”

            Wrong. It is only in controlled demolitions that an entire area is typically covered completely in some uniform height, meaning buildings that were carefully demolished to specifically form a pile within a predetermined radius, usually the footprint of the building. In an uncontrolled collapse of a skyscraper, the debris field is not uniform, and hence you’ll find a wide range of “heights” throughout the extensive debris field. Furthermore, the foundations below the two world trade centers contained 6 stories worth of garages and storage rooms, so some fraction of the debris also ended up in there as the entire building, including its subterranean level pancaked upon one another.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4d5e259b733c7a17b14b94f62cda32d6effddf4d831f9d0884c6493602d79e82.jpg

            But again, you don’t care about that and you don’t have a response to it. You’re just a stubborn tool who has been thoroughly exposed as an uneducated hick and socially inept moron.

            “You don’t drop over 1 million tons of building materials into a couple
            of 200′ by 200′ footprints and the immediate vicinity and end up with
            this”

            Of course you do. Again, that photograph is cherrypicked and doesn’t sufficiently show the extent of the debris or how far flung the “vicinity” of the debris damage is. If you see debris on every corner of a photograph, the debris field is probably much bigger than the amount being shown in the carefully selected photograph.

            This notion that the footprints of the buildings are “virtually devoid of materials” exists only in your little autistic head.

            There are piles of steel rubble unevenly dispersed across an area over 6 times greater than the base of the buildings with some mountains of rubble over 30 feet high in certain places:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7474410c99e8a8659b9d40405eb913fcdda42f0b81ea9380479f413324c1d949.jpg

            with the rest of the debris being accounted by the pulverized concrete spread throughout lower manhattan and another substantial fraction that collapsed into the 7 floors below the lobby and the underground parking structure. You did not account for, measure, or calculate any one of these factors. You just made some sloppy assumptions based on carefully cropped and cherry picked photos that you hustled off of Judy’s website.

            Sorry, that shit isn’t gonna pass, buddy.

          • RichardD

            If that’s the biggest debris pile that you can find out of 1 million tons of building materials, then you’ve proven Dr. Woods correct and proven yourself wrong.

          • hamster

            How so? This is an unsupported assertion. You claimed that that had all of the debris fallen directly into the footprint, it would’ve been 47 yards high. I already demonstrated to you that the perimeter of the rubble from the aerial viewpoint is roughly 6 times greater in surface area than the footprint.

            If this is the case, then ASSUMING (a dumb assumption, but lets take it for argument’s sake) that NONE of the debris was pulverized and spread over all of lower Manhattan, and that there were no subterranean levels in the bathtub, the average height of the debris pile in this area would be 7.83 yards, or 23.5 feet. Again, this would be a uniform height of debris assuming NO debris was pulverized over lower Manhattan, and NO debris fell into the first few levels in the basements and underground parking garages.

            If we assume 20% (a big assumption, could be more, could be less)fell into the subterranean levels and 5% to 10% was pulverized concrete that dissipated at ground level throughout Manhattan, then it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that you would have an average debris height of approximately 16 feet. This is entirely in line with observations.

          • RichardD

            The footprint of a single tower is 200 feet by 200 feet. That’s 4,500 square yards. The amount of concrete alone that went into building 1 tower is 5 stories high. Which doesn’t include the steel and all of the other material. There isn’t 500,000 tons of building material in those footprints and the immediate vicinity. Not even close.

            “Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows. One single tower has a mass of about 450,000,000 kilograms (500,000 tons). The interior design of the World Trade Center contains 240 vertical steel columns, which were called the Vierendeel trusses.”

            – Mass Of The World Trade Center –

            https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96dadd00255867f38c6b82f28be8852a305ea9dbdb9c88b16cad4e82193b4c6a.png

          • hamster

            “The footprint of a single tower is 200 feet by 200 feet. That’s 4,500

            square yards. The amount of concrete alone that went into building 1
            tower is 47 yards high for each footprint.”

            It would only be 47 yards high if it was a:

            A) Controlled demolition, with the entirety of the building materials stacked neatly at the surface of the building footprint. As I have shown before, the majority of the debris field has a surface area at least 6 times greater than the footprint of the building.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3f7265ee1b82ca2e1cf4b1365817fb88c2c4814293c0887ea4064a19fcdda397.png

            Neither of the WTC towers fell into their own footprints. 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.

            B) If none of the concrete was pulverized into a granular flow of soot that covered most of lower Manhattan. It would take a substantial volume of soot and ash from pulverized concrete to create a scene like this:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b3590b337caff4ba281f0779cd4ee5f62ffb7cf350f4f62925af5dfe2c55779.jpg

            C) The world trade center didn’t have any subterranean levels or an adjacent basement that contained a parking structure and storage. But it did. The world trade center contained 7 stories of underground levels, not just right underneath the building, but also in the immediate adjacent areas.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05eb9d29f9e6f9c89442903010644bea8b8dbce9d321dc7eae7ebdd273c2bda4.jpg

            Whatever “missing mass” in the footprint of these buildings that you think is “missing” is completely accounted for through careful analysis and the factoring in of these 3 points.

            “There isn’t over 1 million tons of building material in those footprints and the immediate vicinity. Not even close.”

            You’re going to have to be more precise with your terminology. What is “immediate vicinity”? Start using facts and figures, don’t just bloviate meaningless terms when you are trying to describe measured quantities. If a stranger in New York tells me that they live in my “immediate vicinity”, that is completely useless information.

            Sorry, but over 1.6 million tons of debris was removed by workers from the WTC sites which is consistent with the approximate mass of the materials of all
            the buildings that has either completely or partially collapsed in the lower Manhattan.

            Martin Bellew, Director of the Bureau of Waste Disposal, New York Department of Sanitation states in an article on the AWPA
            website:

            “200,000 tons of steel were recycled directly from Ground Zero to various metal recyclers. The Fresh Kills Landfill received approximately 1.4 million tons of WTC debris of which 200,000 tons of steel were recycled by a recycling vendor (Hugo Neu Schnitzer).”

            Phillips & Jordan, Inc. reported:

            The last debris was processed on July 26, 2002, day 321 of the project. At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission: 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed, 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero).”

            The most recent measurements state that over 1.8 million tons of debris was ultimately removed.

            Sorry but claiming otherwise isn’t going to change reality and reality isn’t on your side.

          • RichardD

            Even if the numbers haven’t been fudged, they don’t even come close to adding up. Buidings 3,4,5,6 & 7 were also demolished, as were some adjecent buildings. The WTC twin towers alone contained 1 to 1.5 million tons of material. It’s clear from the partial clean up shown in this 2002 picture. That they cleaned out the entire bath tub, which doesn’t include building 7. Building 7 had a footprint the same size as one of the twin towers and was 47 stories tall. All of the material from that city block down to the floor and building 7 add up to far more than 1.5 million tons. Some estimates have the twin towers alone weighing 1.5 million tons:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30eab87ea9ecc12903393b908e4c059beb498811561c661dfd236306414c29e3.png

            http://exhibitions.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

            http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image304.jpg

          • hamster

            “Buidings 3,4,5,6 & 7 were also demolished, as were some adjecent buildings.”

            Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 do not have the combined mass and volume of even one of the twin towers, so the total amount of debris hauled out ultimately over the course of the multiple month cleanup completely checks out.

            “The WTC twin towers alone contained 1 to 1.5 million tons of material.”

            ROFL. 1 million to 1.5 million? That’s like a 50% spread. Sorry, but you need to make up your fucking mind. Either its approximately 1 million or its approximately 1.5 million. The twin towers did not weigh each individually weigh 500,000 tons (which by the way was listed on MULTIPLE sources including the one you provided earlier in your response) one day and then weighed 750,000 tons another day. If you were playing professional sports, MMA, or boxing, and someone asks you to provide your approximate body weight, you don’t act like a doofus and say “between 180 to 270”. Or imagine if I was trying to sell you a house and stated that it’s floorplan is “approximately 2000 to 3000 square feet”. You’re going to have to be a little more precise.

            Oh and in case your dumbass tries to misrepresent my argument again, I am not “comparing” professional athletes’s bodies to the WTC or the price of a house to the collapse of the WTC. Rather, I am making an analogy so even a moron like you can understand that talking about quantitative measurements that have a variation of fucking 50% is retarded. You can’t do any sort of meaningful quantitative analysis on anything with variation that high.

            “It’s clear from the partial clean up shown in this 2002 picture. That
            they cleaned out the entire bath tub, which doesn’t include building 7.”

            I don’t see what is so “clear” about that picture in relation to what you are claiming. Again, show me your calculations. How much debris should’ve in your estimation been recovered from the bathtub?

            The bathtub was not full of solid rock and dirt. In fact during the construction of the WTC towers, it was specifically dug out and the surrounding walls created to keep groundwater out from the construction area and in it’s place 7 subterranean levels of parking structures, storage spaces, and also include space for a rapid transit terminal and a subway system.

            And by the way, I have noted how you conveniently ignored the fact that I have mentioned 3 times already the subterranean levels of the WTC and adjacent areas, which by the way are in the bathtub and how some of the so called “missing mass” that you keep wailing about can be accounted for on these levels. You don’t have a counter argument, as usual, because you’re wrong, and you’re terrified of that fact. It’s ok though bitch, that shit doesn’t get past me and ill continue to press you and will continue to demonstrate the futility of your arguments.

            “Building 7 had a footprint the same size as one of the twin towers and was 47 stories tall.”

            Again, this is the 6th time your repeating some irrelevant measure that has absolutely no bearing or descriptive quality in relation to the phenomena we are discussing. What does the “footprint” of a building have anything to do with the mass? The “footprint” of a building is simply the area (measured as distance squared) at it’s base. It has no relevance to how many “tons” the building materials weigh.

            This is why I use analogies, so you can understand basic terminology instead of misusing it. We’re discussing mass, and you’re haphazardly spouting off about surface area. When we discuss density, you blurt out stuff about “height”, When we discuss volume, you start mentioning “distance”.

            I wonder what school, if any, you went to when you were growing up. You literally have a 4th grade comprehension of basic subjects.

            “All of the material from that city block down to the floor and building 7 add up to far more than 1.5 million tons.”

            Unsupported assertion. Where is your data and evidence to back this up?

            And by the way the 1.5 million tons for the twin towers figure is incorrect. That website is likely misstating that figure and it probably refers to the total mass of material for the entire world trade center complex, not just the twin towers. This is easy to demonstrate because:

            1) Virtually all reliable sources across the net, including the numerous ones you cited earlier give a figure of approximately 500,000 tons. This is the most cited figure.

            2) It can also be deduced from the VERY same link where you got that “estimate” from. 200,000 tons of steel weigh… 200,000 tons. 425,000 cubic yards of concrete weigh approximately 850,000 tons. That adds up to slightly over 1 million

            The only way the twin towers could weight 1.5 million tons is if 450,000 tons of some other magical super heavy material is present inside.

            450,000 tons of glass? I don’t think so, buddy. So we got approximately 1 million from the twin towers. Far less than half of that from the remaining collapsed buildings, and then we got 7 levels of an underground parking garage, shopping center, and storage units, most of which was empty space designated for human activity (just like most of the interior of the twin towers was designated as empty office space for the port authority).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62f67e2db7b3c0f748705c9dfcba800b8e516de96524dc11861d2d383911a0a2.jpg

            Here is the bathtub depicted in white. I’m not sure what makes you think there’s supposed to be a lot of missing mass there. The bathtub was not filled with soil and solid concrete, idiot. And a large portion of the debris from the collapse went into the subterranean levels in the bathtub, which can fully account for the height differentials of the debris pile (which was over 6 times the surface area of the “footprint” as I have shown in my previous response) that you seem to be so obsessed by (even though it isn’t a relevant measure of anything).

          • RichardD

            2,3,4 & 5 at twice the footprint and 48 stories equals approximately 1 tower, building 7 across the street with the same footprint as a tower and 48 stories included in the clean up equals roughly half a tower. The 6 to 7 story bath tub at 16 acres, less two acres for the twin towers and 4 acres for buildings 3,4,5 & 6 leaves 10 acres times 6 stories equals 60 stories.

            The Twin Towers is 1 million tons, 3,4,5 & 6 is 500,000 tons, 7 is 250,000 tons, and 10 acres of bath tub at 60 stories is 500,000 tons. That’s 2.25 million tons, less 1.5 million tons in debris removal leaves 750,000 tons missing. Which supports Dr. Woods work, not your lies, ignorance and stupidity.

          • hamster

            “2,3,4 & 5 at twice the footprint and 48 stories equals approximately 1 tower”

            Wrong. Mass isn’t measured in “stories”. Mass is measured by the amount of material that each building consists of. A 1 story building made of denser materials, heavier constituent parts, and thicker ceilings/walls can be significantly more than a 3 or 4 story building made of lighter parts, less dense materials and with thinner outer barriers. Again, I suggest you learn proper terminology if you want to avoid embarrassing yourself to me even more.

            You cannot compare apples to oranges.

            “building 7 across the street with the same footprint as a tower and 48
            stories included in the clean up equals roughly half a tower.”

            A “footprint” is not a measure of the consistency of building material, nor is it a measure of mass. Try again.

            Let me give you a simple thought experiment:

            If building F has has a base equal to building G, and building F is twice as tall as building G then it doesn’t mean that building F automatically has a mass that is twice that of building G. If building G is 25% steel and 75% concrete while building F is 50% steel and 50% concrete, then building F will weigh more than building G by a factor of 2.73, not 2.

            So unless you know the consistency of the building materials in building 7, or any of the other WTCs, you cannot compare their mass by “footprints” or “floors”. That’s not how science is done.

            “The 6 to 7 story bath tub at 16 acres, less two acres for the twin
            towers and 4 acres for buildings 3,4,5 & 6 leaves 10 acres times 6
            stories equals 60 stories.”

            Acres and stories are not a measure of mass. Try again. This is the 9th time you made this measurement mistake. Funny how I don’t seem to have a problem with avoiding this mistake. Maybe it’s because I passed 4th grade geometry, and elementary physics and you just got “passed around” by your inbred family.

            “3,4,5 & 6 is 500,000 tons”

            Unsupported assertion.

            “7 is 250,000 tons”

            Unsupported assertion.

            “and 10 acres of bath tub at 60 stories is 250,000 tons.”

            Unsupported assertion. Acres is a measure of area, it is not a quantitative measure of mass, nor is it a qualitative assessment of material type.

            “That’s 2 million tons, less 1.5 million tons in debris removal leaves 500,000 tons missing.”

            Wrong, you didn’t use valid methodology to calculate or even estimate the the mass of the other WTC buildings, or the building materials in the bathtub by simply assuming that the bathtub has the same constituent materials as the 110 foot high towers. The makeup and consistency of the bathtub in relation to twin towers is about as relevant as the constituent makeup of my house is to the gymnasium basement 1 block away from me. Totally different structures.

            Also, it is not 1.5 million. The absolute minimum that has been recovered is 1.6 million, 1.4 of which was accounted for by a landfill company in Staten Island, and a minimum of 200,000 tons of steel was confirmed to be recycled. The consensus amongst the most up to date of all the debris recovered is 1.8 million tons. Any slight deviation from the dubious “mass” you arrived at through your incoherent and downright retarded methodology, and your magical “missing 500,000 tons” canard quickly collapses on it’s face.

            “Assuming that the government that has lied from day one is even telling the truth about the salvage numbers.”

            You can assume that everyone everywhere in the world lies about everything all the time, and if you want to get deeply philosophical, then the only thing anyone can be sure of about anything ever is “Cogito, ergo sum”, but that is not a useful way of navigating one’s self through the realm of reality.

            “Which supports Dr. Woods work, not your lies, ignorance and stupidity.”

            None of what you said supports Judy’s work because:

            A) Almost none of what you said is based on valid premises or proper investigative scientific methodology.

            B) meth head Judy hasn’t really done any actual “work”. Spending time cooking up conspiracy theories and woo based on haphazard methodology and dubious assumptions while lacking even a basic understanding of scientific terminology, or having any sort of quality standards typical in actual academic research (which would be ACTUAL work) and being unable to defend one’s positions under scrutiny and peer review doesn’t bode well for the credibility of whatever “work” this drug addicted hag thinks she’s done.

          • RichardD

            If anything 1.4 million tons of material, considering that the whole site and some adjacent buildings, including building 7, was cleaned out. Shows that the twin towers were dematerialized before they even hit the ground. Because if you add their 1 to 1.5 million tons of mass. What was taken out of that site should have been double what it was.

          • hamster

            No, each INDIVIDUAL tower weighed roughly 500,000 tons. This is the consensus (and was included in your earlier pictogram from the ericchen hypertextbook), and I ALSO demonstrated it with my calculations of the combined mass of the steel and concrete that was used to build both towers.

            There’s no “dematerialization” going on if the amount of debris that was hauled out of the WTC cite is commensurate with the amount of material that all the buildings were made of.

            And by the way, its not 1.4 million. Its 1.6 million which is the most conservative estimate. Again this just shows you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grade retard. Go reread the quotes, retard. The 1.4 million figure was the amount that was processed by the landfill. It mentions additionally that over 200,000 tons worth of metal was recycled. Learn to read, retard.

            “What was taken out of that site should have been double what it was.”

            Where are your calculations to support this unsubstantiated claim?

          • RichardD

            Game, set, match, checkmate, you loose!

          • hamster

            You’ve lost every single point and counterpoint that you made in this entire thread, and that’s not even mentioning the whole string of corrections i had to make to your 4th grade level understanding of physics and measurements, and well as your 4th grade level of reading comprehension, 90% of which you chose to ignore because you’re not interested in educating yourself to learning how to make clearer, more coherent, and relevant points, and because you have demonstrted yourself to be EMBARRASSINGLY inept, retarded, and ill suited to debate me on a subject you know absolutely NOTHING about, as I have demonstrated on several dozen occasions throughout this discussion.

            I somehow doubt you ever worked as a mechanic in any sort of “secret weapons” facility or whatever the fuck it was you claimed. If such places are hiring, they certainly aren’t hiring delusional morons like Richard D who have the social and mental development of a child.

          • RichardD

            Your claims, coming from a self admitted liar who lies habitually, without supporting proof are essentially meaningless in the face of the proof and evidence that I’ve provided.

          • hamster

            You’ve provided zero evidence and proof for any of your assertions. Let’s see who’s habitual liar here. You’re claiming that you provided me with “proof” and “evidence”. Let’s see if that’s true or not.

            Let’s see here…

            1) You’ve “added” heights to one another to try and discuss mass (wtf?). This isn’t a form of supporting proof or evidence of anything other than the fact that you can add pointless, unrelated numbers.

            (“1,368 x 2 + 741 = 3477 feet of massive steel and concrete superstructure
            that the Twin Towers and Building 7 consisted of. There isn’t 3,477
            feet of material on the ground.”)

            Sorry, but this is incoherent dribble, not “proof” or “evidence”. I’d really love to see you go into academia and research and try to publish peer reviewed scientific research if this is your idea of “proof” or “evidence”.

            2) You asserted, without evidence or proof that the height of a collapsed building’s rubble “must” be 1/8th of the height of the building. Your so called “proof” is to show me an example of an unrelated, entirely different building that you believe somehow demonstrates this. This is similar to saying “all women are fat and black and have acne” and then showing an example of a black fat woman woman with acne to “prove” your point. Not very “scientific” of you.

            When I explained to you that this is not necessarily the case and that it would depend on the dispersal of the debris field which is dependent on variety of listed factors that you did not take into account, you chose to conveniently ignore me. Your so called “evidence” stops being evidence when it is thoroughly refuted and the response from your part is silence.

            3) Then you claim that the “amount” of material that should be at ground zero is not equal to the amount of debris that is supposed to be at the site according to your observations and you proceed to “support” that claim by “measuring” the volume of material in “stories” rather than in material. Again… using an irrelevant descriptive quantification to try and “measure” something. An incoherent and moronic approach.

            4) You claim that the footprint of the buildings is “almost completely devoid” of any materials. I show you multiple photos from different vantage points, as well as 2 photos with a birds eye view, and you don’t have a response.

            5) You claim that every other “tall building” collapse in history has left the largest amount of debris in the footprint. I explained to you the reasons for this (namely that you didnt take into account the ratio of the footprint to the volume, which is much lower in the WTC, the velocity and kinetic energy of the debris of a much taller building like the WTC which added significantly to the force with which the building collapsed, as well as the significant added weight that added even more to the applied force of the falling structure that has no other remotely similar comparison in history). These are very valid counterpoints and are based in a rudimentary understanding of basic physics, which is apparently well above your level understanding, considering you decided not to tackle any of those points, and instead focused on the one thing you could latch on to, which is a poor choice of words when I casually said that the building in tehran looks like it’s half standing (which I later rectified and corrected, but the point I was getting across still stood unchallenged).

            So you failed to substantiate your “footprint” bullshit when asked to factor in the additional externalities that I mentioned. Again, in the face of what “proof” and “evidence” are you talking about here?

            6) You claimed multiple times falsely that debris fell vertically into “200 by 200” footprints and asserted that you should have 47 yard high level of concrete at the footprints of the buildings. When I demonstrated to you that this is not the case, you started saying “footprints and immediate vicinity”. When I pressed you some more, you finally got around to backtracking and acknowledged that the debris area much greater than the 200 by 200 “footprints”, and reluctantly started using a figure of a 50,000 square yard debris field (which I later corrected to be closer to 57500 square yards).

            7) You measured the length of a suspension bridge to talk about the “amount” (aka volume of material) in the bridge (wtf?). Even though “amount” is measure of occupied 3 dimensional space, while length is a 1 dimensional distance from point A to point B. This is not a form of supporting proof or evidence.

            When I called you out on this flaw, you doubled down and said something about dropping the bridge “vertically” into ground zero. When I further demonstrated that this is an incorrect way of measuring the volume or mass of a material, you decided that providing no response would be a valid counter argument, hoping that I wouldn’t notice. Don’t worry bitch, I’m not going to let anything get past me.

            8) You then proclaimed that your invalid comparisons of domes, wide 17-story apartment buildings, and suspension bridges are somehow “relevant” (even though I clearly demonstrated that they are not in a previous response, and gave you a list of reasons why they are not comparable, reasons that you have yet to address) and decided to pull out a dishonest strawman by asserting that the analogies and conceptual exercises that I was trying to convey to you to help you better understand certain concepts that you do not have a good grasp of were somehow “cuckoo” comparisons to the WTC, even though I never “compared” them or anything else to the WTC collapse. I used those analogies to demonstrate flaws in your logic, not to make “comparisons”. It is you who had made comparisons, and this was your pathetic attempt at hiding it.

            Sorry, I noticed that too. So much for standing “in the face” of your so called “evidence”.

            9) You started measuring mass by multiplying “footprints” and “stories”. How can this be “evidence” if the entire methodology is flawed from start to finish? Don’t make me laugh.

            10) After about 20 fucking responses of back and forth bullshit, with me meticulously correcting and calling you out on every one of your episodes of a catastrophic fail in logic and the application of scientific methodology, you FINALLY started using proper terminology (tons when talking about mass, cubic yards when talking about volume). The problem is, you started to intentionally fudge the numbers, sometimes CONTRADICTING your own fucking sources of data. 1 million tons suddenly became 1.5 million tons. The “entire debris field” has to be “20 to 40 feet”. Well, shit… that’s quite a range there buddy. Is it 20 or is it fucking 40? Make up your mind and back up it up with some evidence. Don’t give me some wild speculative ranges.

            11) You lied about the characterization of the debris clouds that covered lower Manhattan as a result of outward expansion upon impact “supporting” Judy’s view. Go look over the videos I posted again. She is claiming that they dustified high in the sky and that most of the building’s mass never hit the ground. But in fact, most of the pulverized concrete that spread throughout Lower Manhattan spread at street level, and it spread at surface level most rapidly after the towers crashed into the ground. It did not fall from “dustified” particles in the atmosphere.

            12) You then provide as evidence some fucking ambiguous “demoliton industry standards”… some meaningless term thinking you can get away using “big words” and proceeding to falsify numbers after that.

            “According to demolition industry standards 1 cubic yard = 1 ton of building material”?

            Uh, no… sorry buddy… You dont get to talk out of your ass or assert utter bullshit like that. You got caught and you got called out for it and you got thoroughly debunked and your bullshit numbers and error filled calculations all got comprehensive addressed in this response:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/southfront/isis_claims_four_us_service_members_killed_in_ied_attack_in_deir_ezzor/#comment-3983612764

            Have fun with that one bitch. There’s your checkmate, retard.

            there’s my “supporting proof”, amongst other things, that you have been a dishonest piece of shit and have provided ZERO evidence to back up any of your claims, and have avoided responding to well over 80% of my responses, particularly the portions with graphs, diagrams and actual measurements, calculations and educated guesses, as well as description of mechanisms of action of physical phenomena.

            You and meth head Judy is not fooling me or anyone else bitch.

          • RichardD

            Using demolition industry standards and readily available open source WTC building specs. There should be approximately 1 million cubic yards of demolition material in the WTC debris field. It’s clear from ground zero photos taken almost immediately after the buildings came down. That there isn’t anywhere near that amount of material present:

            – 9/11 Ground Zero Damage Overview High-Resolution Photos –

            https://publicintelligence.net/911-ground-zero-damage-overview-high-resolution-photos/

          • hamster

            “Using demolition industry standards and readily available open source

            WTC building specs. There should be approximately 1 million cubic yards
            of demolition material in the WTC debris field. It’s clear from ground
            zero photos taken almost immediately after the buildings came down. That
            there isn’t anywhere near that amount of material present”

            Again, that is an unsupported assertion. All observational data as well as the data collected of the amount of debris that was ultimately removed from the WTC wreckage site accounts for all of the wreckage. Your conclusion is based on the amateurish assertion that some of the piles of wreckage are not as “high” as you think they should be. I’ve already demonstrated this to be a flawed assertion on multiple different levels of analysis.

            “The primary debris field according to studies, is about 6 times larger
            than the combined footprints of the Twin Towers, which works out to
            about 50,000 square yards.”

            It actually works out to about 57500 square yards, but ok, let’s keep going.

            “1 million tons of building material at 1 cubic yard per ton using
            industry demolition standards equals 1 million cubic yards of demolition
            debris.”

            ROFL. This is a good one.

            Excuse me, but can you expound upon what exactly “using industry demolition standards” is supposed to mean? Please describe to me in detail and demonstrate to me the relevance of whatever these “industry demolition standards” are to the topic at hand, namely quantifying the mass of a specific building with specific constituent parts. I just looked up “industry demolition standards” to try and figure out what the hell you’re talking about and I got a grand total of 57 results in google. That looks like meaningless terminology and I am not sure what the relevance is of using “industry demolition standards” to calculate the mass and volumes of specific materials is supposed to be.

            You cannot say object A has X volume of “building material”, and then proclaim that “according to B standards, a volume of “building material” corresponds to a given mass of Z, and that “therefore” the mass of object is X multiplied by Z. Sorry, that’s not how it works. Unless object A’s “building material” was standardized to B, you cannot make this assertion.

            The internal structure and composition of the ratios that a building is made out of is not based upon some set value derived from whatever this “industry demolition standards” canard is. There is no standardized mass for “building material” so you can get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. The mass, density, and composition of building materials vary vastly between building to building. A cubic yard of material from my flooring is not the same as a cubic yard of flooring from a cathedral. You cannot determine the mass of my house by referring to “industry demolition standards”.

            So let’s get to the heard of the matter here. There is not 1 cubic yard of building material per ton of building material. You just pulled that shit out of your ass. The amount of average mass per average cubic yard varies from building to building, and it most certainly isn’t 1 to 1 in the case of the WTC.

            What we have is 200,000 tons of steel, and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There is roughly 2 tons per cubic yard of concrete. There is also 489 pounds per cubic foot of steel. There are 27 cubic feet in 1 cubic yard. So therefore there are 489 * 27 = 13200 pounds of steel in a cubic yard of steel. There are 2000 pounds in a ton, so a cubic yard of steel weighs 6.6 tons. Not 1 ton, 6.6 tons.

            So we have 2 tons per cubic yard of concrete. and 6.6 tons per cubic yard of steel. One major constituent of the twin towers is twice larger in mass than whatever your “industry demolition standards” rubbish says, and the other is 6.6 times larger.

            And you want to tell me “check mate”? Jokes on you, bitch. I’m loving every second of this. I hope you continue reading every fucking word of this and continue wallowing in your shame.

            “1 million cubic yards of debris divided by a 50,000 square yard primary debris”

            There is not one million cubic yards of debris, try again. There was approximately 30,300 cubic yards of steel (calculation is 200,000 tons of steel/(6.60 tons/cubic yard of steel). Then there was 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. So you end up basically with 455,000 cubic yards of “building material”, not 1 million.

            Square yard of primary debris is 57500 square yards, not 50,000. (calculation: 208 feet = side of WTC tower. 208/3 = 69.33 yards. 69.33 ^ 2 = 4807.11 square yards per tower. 4807.11 * 2 = 9614 square yards of the twin towers. Debris area = 6 * 9614 = 57684 square yards.

            So we have 455,000 cubic yards divided by 57684 square yards, we get an average depth of 7.88 yards in the debris field. 7.88 yards is approximately 23.5 feet high.

            And did is assuming that:

            1) NONE of the debris was pulverized dispersed over ground level of Manhattan upon impact with the ground.

            and

            2) NONE of the debris collapsed into the or collected in the subterranean sections of the building basements, or the underground parking lot structures, shopping centers and storage facilities that were in the so called “Bathtub” structure.

            “where the vast majority of debris that made it to the ground landed.”

            Debris did not just land on the ground in a particular location. A large portion of the debris landed, particularly a large fraction of the more brittle concrete based debris, and then got PUSHED outwards by the kinetic dispersal energy of the collapse. It’s similar to dropping a glass bottle from a large height. The bottle shatters, but the higher you drop the bottle from, the greater the extent of the debris field of shattered glass. When chunks of smaller granular concrete fell 110 stories, they bounced and were pushed out by the heavier chunks that tended to remain within the main debris field.

            “Results in an average depth of 20 yards, or 60 feet or 6 stories.”

            Wrong, it results in a maximum average rubble height of 23.5 feet when you do not take into account the other 2 factors (pulverized ground level concrete covering lower Manhattan, and collapsed subterranean levels).

            There were 7 stories below ground level of both the twin towers and the Bathtub enclosure. Even if we assume that only one story was sufficiently filled up (in reality all of the levels were partially filled up with rubble, with the one closest to surface level probably more so than the deepest one near the bedrock), that would make a substantial contribution to accounting for the average height of the rubble.

            The average floor height in the WTC was 16.14 feet (1776 ft/110 levels). Assuming the subterranean levels are also 16.14 feet, if just one level below the WTC towers was completely filled with debris, and all other 6 levels were completely empty (an absurb notion, as I’m about to show), the average height of the pile of rubble would already be reduced by a third.

            Here is a cross section of the first underground level of the WTC complex based on a floor by floor assessment of basement levels conducted by Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers in the aftermath of the collapse:

            The first subterranean level right underneath the surface level is called the “Concourse”.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4fbb4292822ea13022b77d5336e3801b0886a3acc1afd80dc4c56197172350f8.gif

            The underground area of the Concourse that is considered “collapsed” or “heavily damaged” is depicted in red, and that area appears to be approximately 8 times larger in surface area than the “footprint” of one of the buildings.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f150b189f9f600a8894ec224115a8f91225b36264067ba0c40568f4ef93fac95.gif

            Right underneath the concourse (the 2nd subterranean level) we have what is known as “basement 1”. The underground area of basement 1 that is considered “collapsed” or heavily damaged looks approximately 6 to 7 times the area of the footprint of the twin towers.

            The area of one footprint of one tower is 4807 yards squared. If we assume that the concourse was completely filled with rubble and that that NONE of the other 6 subterranean levels were willed with any rubble at all (again, an absurd assumption, as other levels were partially filled up too, and the concourse was probably not 100% filled up), then you would have 38456 (4807 * 8) square footage of an entire level filled up. IF the average level/floor height in a 110 story 1776 ft high building is 16 feet, then it is a good educated assumption that the volume of the subterranean Concourse level right underneath the street, if filled up with debris (while the remaining 6 completely “free” from debris, which they clearly weren’t) would amount to 38456 * 16/3 = 205098 cubic yards of debris.

            If we go back and take our figure of 455,000 cubic yards of “building material” that we calculated earlier and subtract 205,000 cubic yards of debris from that, we remain with approximately 250000 cubic yards of debris spread out over a main debris field with a surface area of 57500 square yards. If you divide the volume of 250000 cubic yards of debris by a surface area of 57500 square yards then you get an average height of debris of 4.34 yards, which is approximate 13 feet, which is just slightly higher than two 6-foot tall individuals, and slightly less than the height of 1 story of the twin towers in the form of debris sitting above ground.

            This is entirely consistent with observations and I just demonstrated that it is you, not me, who needs to get your eyes checked (and your juvenile head for that matter).

            Furthermore, here are the diagrams of the states of Basement 2 (3 levels below ground), basement 3 (4 levels below ground) and Basement 6 (the 7th and deepest level below ground, where the areas underneath the twin towers are still virtually completely collapsed):

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f84bd6862fa968aa35caa1bdcee3e7174b22af4435a63b59c70fd62134acef4.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5f95895b8c474e4557bb58405120db9816ef5ea5c7c2ff7071fb8de1708bcab9.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9bf40b0d29e96820302731d6669fdfcef68290699f521cafb2998078c53e4bb2.gif

            What was that you said earlier to me? Check mate?

            Here’s your CHECKMATE mother fucker. How humiliating for meth head Judy Wood.

          • RichardD

            There isn’t this much steel on the ground in the WTC footprints and immediate area.

            “The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge has a central span of 4,260 feet (1,298 m).”

            – Verrazano-Narrows Bridge –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano-Narrows_Bridge

            Verranzo narrows Bridge:
            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eucejI67nlo/TvEKbzhbX2I/AAAAAAAALkw/M3AOjjEotIc/s1600/Verrazano-Narrows-Bridge-2.jpg

          • hamster

            I don’t know why you’re showing me a picture of a bridge. It’s another pointless irrelevant comparison just like with the Tehran apartment building, the Kingdome or your earlier mention of the added (wtf?) heights of the WTC towers. Take a look at this bridge very carefully. Notice how the road is not made of steel, and neither is the foundation. Only the towers, the main and secondary hangers, and the criss crossed bridge deck are made of steel. Notice how most of those steel structures are largely empty space. So in this case, the distance of the bridge (a one dimensional measure similar to the “height” of WTC) is completely useless for any relevant analysis. If you condense the steel constituent parts of this bridge into a compact pile of rubble, or melt down all of the steel, it will look orders of magnitude small then the bridge.

            “There isn’t this much steel on the ground in the WTC footprints and immediate area.”

            And
            how did you come to this conclusion again? Did you take measurements of
            the amount of steel at ground zero, the perimeter of the debris field
            and in the subterranean levels that the buildings collapsed into?

            Did
            you personally go to the Bureau of Waste disposal to calculate a
            mismatch between the amount of steel that war processed and recycled
            from the wreckage and compare that to the amount of steel that was used
            in the construction? Of course you didn’t, so we’re back to square one,
            with you doing the only thing you are proficient at. Talking bullshit
            out of your ass.

            “”The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge has a central span of 4,260 feet (1,298 m).”

            Again… why are you talking about an irrelevant measure such as 1 dimensional distance? It is completely irrelevant. The distance of a string of yarn does not alone determine the “amount” of yarn contained in a ball of yarn.

            The width, thickness, compactness and density of the yarn material need to be taken into account to even begin to make any kind of valid assessment.

            I have yet to see you do this calculation, or any calculation for that matter. Of course I fully understand why you won’t/can’t. Because you and your beloved meth head Judy Wood end up looking like morons when actual measurements and calculations are done and a thorough and genuinely scientific analysis is conducted (as opposed to amateurish observation of cherry picked photographs and hasty generalizations based on incredulous hunches that have no basis in the scientific method).

            Sorry to break it to you, but you and that meth addicted hag Judy haven’t actually “discovered” anything by looking at a few still photographs that the thousands of cleanup workers and personnel who were actually on the ground somehow didn’t notice. I can promise you, you’re not that special. It’s more like you have special needs.

          • RichardD

            Your saying something being irrelevant when it clearly is highly relevant shows how much of a liar that you are. Like when you’ve habitually lied about the Plasco building and Dr. Wood being a meth head.

            The super structure of the twin towers contains more steel than that almost 1 mile long bridge. If you drop that bridge lengthwise into those footprints. You would have far more steel on the ground then there was.

            I’m comparing steel and concrete with steel and concrete. You’re off in some delusional cloud cuckoo land comparing steel and concrete with oil, yarn and tin cans. You’re delusional in your irrelevant comparisons. I’m spot on with mine.

          • hamster

            I am not merely saying that something is irrelevant, I am saying a discussion of a one dimensional measure of distance is irrelevant by definition when you are discussing the “amount” of any substance. That is not a difference of opinion or a different perspective. That is an incontrovertible fact. You cannot measure the amount of a substance with one dimensional “distance”.

            I’ve already demonstrated this to you in an earlier response, and gave you a list of terminology that you should become acquainted with. As usual, you chose to ignore it. Of course I know why you ignore 90% of what I write. Its because I’m humiliating the shit out of you in each and every single response and you’re trying to save face instead of learning something new.

            Btw, Dr Wood DOES look like a methhead. She looks and behaves like a typical stuttering drug addict, and just like you, cannot hold up to any sort of intellectual scrutiny. Both you and Dr Wood are fragile, weak minded degenerates who do not have the desire or the mental capacity to provide a deep analysis or rebuttal of anything when you are challenged.

            “The super structure of the twin towers contains more steel than that almost 1 mile long bridge.”

            Yes, and that one mile long bridge doesn’t particularly have a large AMOUNT of steel in it. The LENGTH of the bridge is irrelevant if the width is nearly non existent and the volume is largely empty space. Melt down the steel in the bridge into a gigantic brick and you will have a pile of metal of inconspicuous size. Again, the length here is irrelevant, as I have proven to you over 3 times already (and every single time you have refused to provide a counter argument. Because you can’t, because you’ll lose, because you’re 100% wrong).

            “If you drop that bridge lengthwise into those footprints. You would have far more steel on the ground then there was.”

            Unsupported assertion. Feel free to substantiate this with some calculations. I won’t hold my breath though.

            “I’m comparing steel and concrete with steel and concrete.”

            Comparing steel and concrete to steel and concrete isn’t enough to make a valid comparison. That’s like saying you’re comparing a human being to a zebra and claiming that both the zebra and the human being and claiming that they are both part of the same species because they both have “flesh and bones”.

            In your case you’re comparing the length of a bridge to the volume of WTC debris. That is an apples to oranges comparison. The length of the bridge is not a measure of the volume (aka “amount”) of steel that the bridge is made of. That is not an opinion of me “saying” something is irrelevant, it just irrelevant by the simple virtue of the fact the length and volume describe vastly different characteristics of observable matter. This is not up for debate, you’re just wrong, and had you been in any basic physics of geometry course in school, you would most certainly have failed.

            “You’re off in some delusional cloud cuckoo land comparing steel and concrete with oil, yarn and tin cans.”

            That is not a “comparison”. Never did I “compare” any of those things to the WTC. I didn’t ever compare WTC to anything. I made an analogy to prove a point.

            The tin can analogy was not to compare the WTC to a tin can. The tin can analogy to help you understand the concept of density and to demonstrate that the height of a buildings (which you also somehow erronously “added” to one another for some weird reason) is not a measure of the AMOUNT (mass or volume) of a paricular substance. Whether an empty soda can is 6 inches tall or crushed down to a third of an inch by someone stomping it doesnt change the fact that amount of material that the can is made is made of is conserved. So when you mention the height of the towers, that doesn’t tell us anything about the amount of substance the towers are made of. That is the whole point. It is to demonstrate to you the concept of density and to help you realize that empty porous space within any structure is not a part of its mass.

            The oil/sand funnel analogy was not “compared” to the WTC collapse. It was an analogy used to demonstrate a simple concept of the flow of debris once the volume of debris hits a surface level with a certain amount of kinetic energy. When you pour any kind of pulverized, flowing rubble onto a surface, particularly a large volume of (with the height of the substance in the contained significantly greater than it’s diameter) it onto a specific square area, it does not remain confined the point of contact with the surface that it is hitting. This whole analogy has nothing to do with comparisons. It was used specifically to address the ridiculous, thoroughly debunked canard of “footprints”. There is absolutely NOTHING to scientifically support the idea that the debris of any granular object, particularly a tall but narrow one would need to predominantly be confined to its own “footprint” in case of a collapse. This analogy helps you to understand why. It is not meant to be used as a comparison. It is meant to provide you with a conceptual understanding of kinetic energy, flow, and surface area.

            The yarn analogy is once again, not a “comparison” to the WTC, it is a thought experiment for you to understand for the 5th time that one dimensional distance is not a measure of the “amount” (volume of material) of something. If I tell you a string of yarn is 20 feet long, that doesn’t tell you anything about the volume area that a ball of yarn makes up. In a similar vein, if you say that a bridge is of a certain particular length, that is a measure of “distance” across a bridge from point A to point B, it is not a measure of the volume/”amount” of steel that is used to construct the bridge.

            “You’re delusional in your irrelevant comparisons.”

            Yeah, except none of these are “comparisons”, these are conceptual thought experiments so you can understand basic terminology. You seem to have a 4th grade grasp of measurements and physical phenomena. You’re trying to incorrectly use length to describe mass and are trying to correlate distance with surface area like a retarded buffoon.

            “I’m spot on with mine.”

            Wrong. The length of a bridge bridge, a wide stadium, and a wide 17 story building in Tehran are not the same as an extremely high, relatively narrow, largely hollow structure like the world trade center which had jumbo jet airliners crash into it. You’re comparing apples to orange. Notice how I didn’t compare the WTC to anything. I used analogies to demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of physical concepts that hopefully even an offroading hillbilly like you would understand.

            “Did you graduate from high school?”

            Yes, I have a Master’s degree and graduated with highest honors. You have demonstrated on the other hand that you don’t even have a grasp of 4th grade level concepts in geometry and elementary physics. You still keep sputtering on about height, distance, and “footprint” even though you have been thoroughly debunked and humiliated on all of these points.

            “Do you understand that paper thin sheet metal, oil and yarn in no way compare to massive steel and concrete super structure?”

            You have a 4th grade level of reading comprehension apparently too. Notice that I did not “compare” any of those things to the WTC. All of those thought experiments were put forth to demonstrate conclusively that some of your assertions and proclamations have absolutely zero scientific merit. I have successfully done that, and you got nothing to do but bitch about it and try to deflect or misrepresent my views.

            “Do you understand that paper thin sheet metal, oil and yarn in no way compare to massive steel and concrete super structure?”

            No, that would be Judy Wood. Look at her. The stuttering hag looks all washed up, like a typical reclusive druggie and social reject. That’s why I refer to her as “meth head Judy”.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            “Show me pictures containing 1 to 2 million tons of demolition debris in
            the 911 WTC city block debris field, I don’t see them. The entire debris
            field would have to be 20 to 40 feet deep with even higher areas. It’s
            not there. The biggest that you’ve shown me is a pile that might be 40
            or 50 feet high at the peak, which rapidly tapers off from there, and
            covers maybe 1% of the debris field. ”

            I’ve shown you plenty of pictures that depict as such. 20 feet high is entirely consistent with observation on the ground when you compare the size of people (denoted in tiny red streaks) to the rubble.

            The majority of the rubble here is easily over 20 feet high wherever you see rubble. None of those people in the background denoted by tiny red streaks would be able to easily walk over to the gigantic tractors at the foreground of the picture. the vast majority of that rubble looks well over 20 feet high.

            If you disagree, that is your problem, not the world’s problem. I’ll take my own common sense, my evidently vastly more intelligent critical thinking skills, my VASTLY more comprehensive knowledge base of basic measurements and understanding of physics, the VAST overwhelming majority of far more qualified people who agree with me, as well as the 10s of thousands of workers at the WTC site who don’t seem to share your irrational paranoia… I’ll take all of that over the uninformed opinions and belligerent tirades of a half literate hilly billy named RichardD who does “research” looking at cherry picked photographs and spouting off unsupported assertions or some recluse, drug addicted former assistant professors that doesn’t even have a grasp of basic scientific knowledge.

          • RichardD

            A few acres at 20 feet equals 25,000 cubic yards per acre, times 5 equals 125,000 cubic yards. That leaves you 875,000 cubic yards short.

          • hamster

            Your 1,000,000 cubic yards canard has already been debunked. It is far closer to 455,000 cubic yards:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/southfront/isis_claims_four_us_service_members_killed_in_ied_attack_in_deir_ezzor/#comment-3983612764

            This is probably the post you should focus most of your response for you. I corrected every single one of your calculations and substantiated my own.

            There is also nearly 12 acres of the debris site. 10 acres if we use your unscrupulously low end rounding of 50,000 square yards of the debris site.

            NOT 5.

            So what do we have here? Another act of blatant dishonesty. The actual amount of material is less than half of what you think it should be, and the actual area of the debris field is more than double what you think it is. And this is all calculated using information that even your linked sources mention. Congratulations.

            How about that “check mate”, faggot?

          • RichardD

            LOL

            Your scam of covering 13 acres with the equivalent of 23.5 feet of poured concrete and steel with no air gaps to “prove” your point that the entire mass of the Twin Towers landed in the debris field is typical of the intelectual dishonesty, lies and irrational nonsense that you’ve been massively spamming these threads with.

            There isn’t 13 acres 20 feet deep, in some places it averages 20 feet deep, maybe more. About half of the primary debris field. Which is a few hundred thousand cubic yards that weighs far less per cubic yard than your solid concrete and steel scam. There isn’t a million tons of building material on the ground. Not even close.

            Most of what ended up on the ground from the Twin Towers is east of them. This picture taken on 911 50 feet from one of the Twin Towers is zero to 5 feet deep.

            https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Destruction66.jpg

            Yes half of the debris field averages 20 feet deep and the rest is far less. The 5 or 6 acres with most of the debris starts out at ground level east of the Twin Towers in front of buildings 5 and 6, extends south and rises to 3 or 4 stories, quite a bit of which is on top of the remains of building 4:

            https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Air-0992.jpg

            http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments_files/fig3.jpg

          • hamster

            “Your scam of covering 13 acres with the equivalent of 23.5 feet of poured”

            That is not a “scam”. You should learn the proper definition of the word “scam” if you going to start using the terminology. Just like you should learn the terminologies of distance, volume, mass, density, energy, and force, all of which you have used incorrectly.

            “to “prove” your point that the entire mass of the Twin Towers landed in
            the debris field is typical of the intelectual dishonesty, lies and
            irrational nonsense that you’ve been massively spamming these threads
            with.”

            I never said that the “entire mass” landed in the debris field. A large proportion of it did. Part of the concrete was pulverized and forced outward in the form of soot, and a significant part of the debris also fell into the subterranean levels, which can fully account for any average debris height within the 12 acres of debris that have an average height of less than 23.5 feet.

            Note that the 23.5 figure is a gross over estimation of average debris height because it did not take those 2 factors into account.

            I did the calculations for you in this particular response here:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/southfront/isis_claims_four_us_service_members_killed_in_ied_attack_in_deir_ezzor/#comment-3983612764

            It is entirely plausible that the average height within the 12 acre debris field is in the early to mid teens range in terms of footage. This is fully in accordance with observation whether you like it or not.

            “There isn’t 13 acres 20 feet deep, in some places it averages 20 feet deep, maybe more.”

            I did not say there was 13 acres 20 feet deep. I said that would be the average depth if the entirety of the rubble was confined to the 12 acres and did not include the:

            1) Pulverized soot that was pushed outwards at ground level over all over lower Manhattan.

            and perhaps more importantly,

            2) None of the subterranean levels below the twin towers or in the bathtub suffered any sort of collapse (which they did).

            Those calculations were taken into account in this response. You’re more than welcome to examine and critique it rather than moaning:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/southfront/isis_claims_four_us_service_members_killed_in_ied_attack_in_deir_ezzor/#comment-3983612764

            23.5 is the absolute maximum hypothetical average according to the calculations. Any average that is measured less than that figure is fully accounted for in the above post.

            “Which is about half of the primary debris field. That contains a few
            hundred thousand cubic yards that weighs far less per cubic yard than
            your solid concrete and steel scam.”

            The debris are made of broken up steel and pulverized concrete. That is not a “scam”. Pulverized concrete doesn’t magically weigh less simply because it has greater granularity.

            “There isn’t a million tons of building material on the ground. Not even close.”

            You can keep repeating that phrase ad nauseaum, but repeating the same phrase like a stubborn child isn’t going to do you any favors. I have already demonstrated to you that there is not 1 million cubic yards of rubble, but somewhere closer to 455,000, and that the debris field is not 5-6 acres, but upwards to 12. I have also done calculations taking into account the collapse of debris into subterranean levels. It all comes out to an average height that is notable less than even the 23.5 foot high figure, which is absolutely in line with observations. Crying like a bitch and saying “no it aint!” isn’t a valid argument, try again.

            “Most of what ended up on the ground from the Twin Towers is east of
            them. This picture taken on 911 50 feet from one of the Twin Towers is
            zero to 5 feet deep.”

            Sorry but now you’re being dishonest and cherry picking once again. That picture is not sufficiently zoomed or taken from a vantage point that allows one to fully see the rubble.

            Also, in that very same picture, you see rubble piles that are 60 feet high. I have highlighted the tiny specs of people in the background with red streaks. Showing me the same old picture of an ambulance that happened to be in a porous location where less debris fell and proclaiming that this is “average” debris field is pure dishonesty.

            https://imgur.com/a/tj56Jbh

            “Yes half of the debris field averages 20 feet deep and the rest is far less.”

            Large portions of the debris field average greater than 20 feet. If you were to average it all out AND to assume that none of the debris fell into the subterranean levels (which it did) and none of the debris was pulverized outward at ground level in the form of soot, it would come out to an averge of over a little more than 20 feet. But we do know that that those 2 other factors did happen. So we can expect an average debris heigh of somewhere in the lower to mid teens, not more than 20. This is entirely consistent with observations.

            I did the calculations for you here:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/southfront/isis_claims_four_us_service_members_killed_in_ied_attack_in_deir_ezzor/#comment-3983612764

            “The 5 or 6 acres with most of the debris starts out at ground level east of the Twin Towers in front of buildings 5 and 6”

            The 5 or 6 acres with the majority of the debris contain piles that are much great than 20 feet high. I’ve already shown you pictures depicting this in multiple responses, with workers marked by little streak of red for a size comparison.

          • RichardD

            The FEMA debris field is misleading. Most of the debris fell east of the towers and south of buildings 5 and 6 in a 5 or 6 acre area. They start out at ground level in front of 5 and 6 and rise to 3 or 4 stories on top of collapsed building 4. For an average depth of 2 stories. The rest of the debris field has minimal coverage. 6 acres at 7 yards depth is 200,000 cubic yards at 1 ton per yard. That’s 200,000 tons and is the vast bulk of what’s on the ground:

            https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Air-0992.jpg

          • hamster

            Wrong, I already debunked your 1 ton per cubic yard canard, and an in an extremely embarrassing way for you. The website you cited, probably written up by a secretary who doesnt understand measurement systems is incorrect in it’s figure (it seems that website is a directory for home demolition personnel, it’s not even a site made by a building demolition company, and certainly that is not a part of any “industry standards”).

            Concrete weighs 2400 kilograms per square meter, not 2400 pounds per square yard.

            This is something you should’ve learned in 4th grade elementary school when they were teaching you basic geometry.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BegKnu88vUs

            Checkmate faggot.

          • RichardD

            Look idiot, no rational person is buying that a broken pile of concrete like what you see at demolition sites, weighs the same as a solid block.

          • hamster

            It doesn’t exactly weigh the same, but the differences are not negligible. Certainly nowhere near 100% different, or for that matter even a 20% difference. It’s like comparing sand to sandstone. You can pour granular sand into a bucket or have a sandstone the size of the bucket. The sand might take up a slightly higher volume at the very top of the pile in the bucket.

            The WTC was pulverized into countless numbers of tiny constituent parts, particularly it’s concrete. Any large pieces of the world trade center tend to be steel. Most concrete broke up into littered pieces that from a bird eye view vantage point look nothing more than sand compared to the buildings. When you break something apart into millions, or even thousands of little pieces, the pieces collectively when lumped together into a pile make a pile that isn’t much bigger than the original object.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            Incredible survival story, of one person… out 2996 individuals. One person managed to survive in one porous section of the debris. That isn’t “proof” that compact debris weighs a “lot” less than the solid material. You can have solid material or you can break up solid material in thousands, if not millions of debris and pour the debris into a bucket. The volume of the debris in a bucket will not be significantly higher than a solid piece of material the size of the bucket.

            Again, try breaking up a brick of sandstone into 10,000 pieces and then pouring the pieces into a box. The box will fill up only slightly higher in volume than the volume of the sandstone brick.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            Yes, a pile of debris. Probably takes up slightly more space than it’s constituent building materials.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            I am not an “ignorant truth hating scammer”, I just understand how to objectively calculate the masses of common materials.

            “Who are people going to believe, a proven habitual liar and scam artist
            like you, or professionals who do this type of work for a living? ”

            The professionals who this type of works for a living dont agree with you.

            That amateurish website you linked to got it’s facts wrong, probably because it is run by dumbfuck hillbilly Americans who do not understand the difference between the metric system and the American system.

            https://www.everything-about-concrete.com/weight-per-cubic-foot-for-1-yard-of-concrete.html

            (“Answer:

            In general, 1 yard of concrete weighs about 4050 pounds. 1 cubic yard of concrete equals 27 cubic feet.

            4050 lbs divided by 27 cubic feet = 150 lbs. per cubic foot.

            So
            1 cubic yard of concrete weighs 150 pounds per cubic foot. If you
            break down the weight of the individual aggregates (cement, stone, and
            sand) in the concrete, you get the following weights:

            517 pounds of cement /27 = 19 lbs per cubic foot

            1560 pounds of sand /27 = 58 lbs per cubic foot

            1600 pounds of stone /27 = 59 lbs per cubic foot”)

            Oh and look what we have here?

            https://www.everything-about-concrete.com/density-of-concrete.html

            “A normal weight concrete weighs 2400 kg per cubic meter or 145 lbs per cubic foot (3915 lbs per cubic yard).”

            So not only are you wrong (a quick google search and browsing of websites all agree that concrete weigh approximately 4000 lbs per cubic yard), but the one amateur website you link to actually makes a mistake with using the metric system instead of the English system.

            Cubic meters are the metric system’s measurement of volume. Kilograms, which are 2.2 times the mass of pounds, are the metric system’s measurement of mass.

            The weight of concrete per cubic METER is 2400 KILOGRAMS.

            Not 2400 “pounds” per cubic “yard”.

            What a fucking embarassment. I bet that website was not even written by a demolition contractor. It looks like some secretary wrote that shit up who doesn’t even know the different systems of measurement.

            Moreover a cubic yard of water weighs almost 1700 lbs. You really think a cubic yard of fucking concrete weighs only 20% more? Congratulations on being delusional.

            Why don’t you stick to tending to topsoil.

            “Game, set, match, check mate, fool”?

            Yeah and you just fucking got humiliated miserably.

            Keep going bitch, I’m enjoying eviscerating you.

          • RichardD

            You’re a lying idiot scammer. A broken up debris pile of concrete, like what you see at demolition sites, weighs far less than a solid block.

          • hamster

            It does not weight “far less”. A bucket of debris does not weight twice less than the constituent materials from which it is made of.

            And when you have debris that has been pulverized and shattered into small constituent parts, which allows them to compact against one another more densely, the difference between the “solid material” and the granular constituents is largely negligible.

          • RichardD

            What is it about broken up chunks of concrete like what is removed at building demolition sites weighs a lot less then a solid block that you don’t understand?

          • hamster

            Again, the fact that it is wrong. How much is a “lot less”? Show me your calculations. If I were to fill up a crate with dominoes neartly stacked together versus a crate up with dominoes just randomly thrown it, the difference in weight would be negligible and would depend largely upon what the volume of air is in the porous crevices between the domino pieces are. That volume of porous air does not make the crate weigh a “lot less”. Not even close to the factor of doubling that you claim it does.

          • RichardD

            I’ll go with my eyes, and people who do this work for a living, not your lies and stupidity. 911 debris:
            http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1098953.1340167685!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/pension20n-1-web.jpg

          • hamster

            The people who “do this work for a living” disgree with you, as do virtually all conversions and measurements. Finding a website that accidentally used the metric system instead of imperial doesn’t help bolster your point.

            Not sure what your “eyes” see either. A pile of rubble that is sufficiently broken up into smaller constituent parts leaves little space for pockets of air that would add to the volume.

            That pile of rubble is not made up for 50% air.

          • RichardD

            You’re wasting my time with your lies ignorance and stupidity.

            The people who do this for a living disagree with you. I’ll go with the people who do this for a living. 1 ton per cubic yard of concrete or mixed heavy debris:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d30eefdeec0e4d4041bdf3b2e217cf96c8dddb4cb2b6db05529afd0344aa10e.png

            – CONCRETE DUMPSTER –

            http://dumpsterrentalinc.com/2017/03/31/concrete-dumpster/

          • hamster

            Again, you’re sourcing a post from a blog from a dumpster rental company. This isn’t “industry standards”.

            Industry standards are a conversion between mass of a standardized substance and the amount of volume it fits in. You cannot cherry pick a blog post from an online listing company, and a blog post from a dumpster rental company and proclaim yourself to be correct.

            Either concrete weighs a certain amount per volume or it doesn’t. That is not a matter of opinion. the people that do this for a living disagree with you, and finding 1 ambiguous blog post on the net doesn’t demonstrate your point.

            Here’s a dumpster company that rents out dumpsters for materials disposal and they even have a weight conversion calculator:

            https://www.budgetdumpster.com/resources/dumpster-weight-calculator.php

            The only way a cubic yard of volume can weigh 1 ton is if it is primarily made of topsoil.

            The WTC was made of reinforced concrete.

            I’v also already mentioned the fact (that you conveniently ignored) that a cubic yard of water is nearly 1700 pounds. Concrete does not weigh only 17.5 % more than water. Any retard that has picked up a gallon of water, and a similar sized container of concrete will tell you this.

            You would quickly lose your job if you worked for any construction company under the assumption that 1 cubic yard of concrete weighs 1 ton. You would be losing 50% of your company’s revenue.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            Dumpster company again. Again, when they measure the amount of concrete.

            And this is not concrete that has been pulverized into tiny pieces. These are brick chunks. The WTC has a much wider variety of sizes in the debris, considering that a large portion of the debris was pulverized into much smaller particles when it came down. If you pour sanded down particles in between a pile of bricks and concrete chunks, the overall weight will increase significantly. Business and home owners do not pulverize concrete when they break it up with jackhammers.

            Apples to oranges comparison, next.

          • RichardD

            1 ton of mixed heavy debris per cubic yard is the industry standard for salvage work.

          • hamster

            Wrong again. There is no “industry standard”. Industry standards are established by regulations and conversions and are published and routined reviewed, and should also be available to the public. You have not provided me with any “industry standards”.

            You have shown me a few websites with blog posts from dumpster rental companies, who talk about “mixed heavy debris”. Mixed heavy debris do not contain particles that would be classified as smaller than boulders or cobbles.

            Pulverized concrete can contain particles anywhere from pebbles, gravel, silt, sand, and dust, all of which was present in large quantities at the WTC collapse site.

            No “industry standard” there sorry. Granular material stuck between boulders and bricks adds to the weight of debris. There is no way around this. This is a fact of the physical world.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            Dumpster company again. Someone breaks up a building with jackhammers into large, brick like pieces and throws them into a dumpster, with no pulverization. As we saw from the plume of smoke that covered lower Manhattan, a large portion of the concrete was pulverized by kinetic energy as it came down and then dispersed outward.

            Sorry, but there’s no “missing mass”. If you went ahead and collected all the soot and dust throughout lower manhattan and poured it into the piles of debris, the debris piles would become more compact, and their weight would be representative of the solid materials.

          • RichardD

            1 ton of mixed heavy debris per cubic yard is the industry standard for salvage work.

          • hamster

            1 ton of mixed “heavy debris” does not form the entirety of a pulverized skyscraper that collapsed in an uncontrolled demolition.

            1 ton of “mixed” heavy debris also varies in weight based upon what types of “heavy debris” are being hauled. And again, they are talking about “heavy debris”. Debris that is more fine and granular, such as sand and gravel, are not considered “heavy debris”. There was a lot of granular debris at the WTC site and throughout lower manhattan. What a residential disposal company has to say about hauling off porous blocks of concrete from a residential area is completely irrelevant.

            Blog posts that give hypothetical approximations are not an “industry standard”. Industry standards are based on conversions and measurements and are published in industry reports, not on blog posts of dumpster companies.

          • hamster

            you can repeat the same sentence ad nauseaum, I already demonstrated to you that this isn’t the case. There are no “industry standards” when it comes to “mixed heavy debris” because different heavy debris have different masses depending on what is in the debris.

            What you gave are rough estimates for typical heavy debris that are removed from residential and business districts that usually contain a mixture of porous large slabs of broken up concrete and bricks and boulders, not mixtures of that and pulverized, granular, sandlike material.

            If you poured a bunch of sand, gravel, and pebbles together with your slabs of concrete into these dumpsters, they wouldn’t take them because you would already exceed the maximum weight measures before reaching a max volume indicator. In fact, they would likely have regulations on what sort of granular material, if any, you can possibly put into the dumpster.

            All concrete is, is a mixture of crushed stone, gravel, sand, and cement. IF any of these things are pulverized into finer, granular constituents, their weight doesn’t change, but they will no longer qualify as “heavy debris” and thus would likely have to be collected and hauled off seperately.

            Granular concrete constituents are rare in small scale controlled dismantling of residential and business spaces, and therefore it cannot be compared the massive dust clouds and soot that covered lower manhattan as a result of the collapse.

            These people work to dispose of broken slabs and bricks, not a combination of granular sanded material.

          • RichardD

            “While these type dumpsters can be filled with mixed debris, (concrete, asphalt, soil, etc) the most cost efficient way to dispose of each is with clean loads, which means just one material. This allows for cheaper costs of recycling disposal, which in turn leads to a more economical upfront dumpster cost.

            The most common concrete or asphalt disposal dumpster size is 10 cubic yards. This is because the maximum weight for a heavy debris dumpster is 10 ton, which is the estimated weight of a full dumpster.”

            – Roll off Dumpsters for Concrete and Asphalt Disposal –

            https://wynnsbins.com/roll-off-dumpsters-for-concrete-and-asphalt-disposal/

          • RichardD

            1 ton of mixed heavy concrete debris per cubic yard is the industry standard for salvage work as I’ve said numerous times:

            “Mixed Heavy Debris: Any combination of clean concrete and other heavy materials such as brick, block or asphalt.
            Disposal of clean concrete can always be handled with one of our concrete dumpster rentals. We can also haul away mixed heavy debris as long as all materials are free of trash, lead-based paint and significant amounts of rebar or other metal.

            The maximum weight for a heavy debris load is 10 tons. The best dumpster size for concrete disposal is generally a 10 cubic yard dumpster. However, you can also rent a 20 cubic yard dumpster and fill it up halfway.”

            https://www.budgetdumpster.com/dumpsters-for-concrete-workers.php

          • hamster

            “1 ton of mixed heavy concrete debris per cubic yard is the industry standard for salvage work as I’ve said numerous times”

            I’ve heard what you said, but dumpster rental companies do not dispose of sand, dust, and soot from pulverized building demolitions. Those would not qualify as “clean concrete, brick, block or asphalt”.

            More pulverized concrete, or any material for that matter is referred to as gravel, dust, soot, etc. If you poured concrete gravel into a dumpster along with concrete slabs, the weight would go up considerably as the spaces between the slabs would be filled up by mass. There is massive amounts of granular substance all over ground zero and a thick layer of soot that covered most of lower Manhattan.

            these smaller debris particles are more lightweight and therefore had a greater dispersion surface area throughout the surounding blocks than did heavier slabs of concrete or steel that mostly coalesced around the 11-12 acres debris field around the WTC complex.

          • RichardD

            Those dumpster and heavy trucking companies are quoting the industry standards required by law by the government for trucking this type of material. You can look up the regs yourself:

            https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/

            They all rent the largest and heaviest legally available dumpsters used in commercial and industrial salvage. They do this type of work on a commercial and industrial scale every day. That’s why I choose them to illustrate the point. They know from decades of experience what they can and cannot legally haul.

            These are the same types of dumpster and trucking companies that did the WTC clean up. They all have state and federal licenses, authorities and clearances to do this type of work. They know better than you what mixed heavy debris of the type present at the WTC site weighs per cubic yard. It’s their business to know.

            The WTC clean up was an imploded building salvage job, not a quarry operation. Just like the debris field was mixed heavy debris, not a fresh pour of solid concrete and steel like you tried to misrepresent it as in your crazy comparison. Some granular material is present in all imploded buildings. Most of the mixed heavy debris is larger pieces of concrete and sections of steel.

            Most of the non steel material in this picture is chunks of concrete far larger than sand:

            https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WTC-Overview1.jpg

            It’s no different than the debris from the 31 story Ocean Tower demolition in this picture. If anything the WTC debris is less dense. Heavy mixed debris dumpsters like the one shown in this picture are standard procedure in these types of salvage operations. I’ll go with the pros estimates who do this type of work full time over yours.

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qHD3UCte4hY/hqdefault.jpg

          • hamster

            “Those dumpster and heavy trucking companies are quoting the industry standards required by law by the government for trucking this type of

            material. You can look up the regs yourself:

            https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/

            No they are not quoting “industry standards”. They are making general recommendations to anyone who wishes to haul off large debris of broken up “heavy” debris. Heavy debris is not light debris and anything that is considered a cobble, pebble, granule, sand, dust, or any other sort of granular, small scale debris would not be considered as “heavy debris”. Concrete mainly consists of a mixture of aggregates such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone held together by paste made of cement, which itsself can also be granulated into cement dust. However, the reason they specifically haul off concrete separately rather than hauling off the granulated constituents is because if granulated constituents are mixed in with larger chunks and slabs of debris from any residential or business district that the dumpster is provided to, then the mass of the filled dumpster would exceed the legal limit.

            Nothing on that government website shows me anything about an “industry standard” of “heavy debris” equaling a certain mass. And I know no such industry standard exists just by virtue of the fact that different types of debris can vary in mass per volume measurements due to different in the constituents within the debris, as well as the density and granularity of the debris.

            “They all rent the largest and heaviest legally available dumpsters used
            in commercial and industrial salvage. They do this type of work on a
            commercial and industrial scale every day. That’s why I choose them to
            illustrate the point. They know from decades of experience what they can and cannot legally haul.”

            Yeah, but none of this illustrated your point, which is the dubious claim that there is an “industry standard” for the amount of building debris that can be contained within a given amount of volume. You gave me an example of concrete disposal guidelines given out to people who rent dumpsters. The assumption being that they are disposing of “heavy debris” (rocks, slabs, boulders, bricks) rather than granular gravel disposal or a mixture or pulverized material and heavy debris.

            I have yet to see this “standard” anywhere. I couldn’t find this so called “standard” on the government website you linked me to (which only linked to the homepage). You’re more than welcome to try and find this specific “industry standard” anywhere in the government regulations. As far as I know the relevant regulations only cover the dimensions of the container, the allowable mass parameters, as well as what types of materials can or cannot be transported together. There are no regulations dictating to demolition specialists and disposal workers to “assume” any set “standard” of density of mixed materials.

            Recommendations by third party dumpster rental sites for clients who are getting rid of “heavy” debris are not considered “industry demolition standards”. If you can show me this “industry demolition standard” somewhere, then maybe we can get somewhere.

            “These are the same types of dumpster and trucking companies that did the WTC clean up. They all have state and federal licenses, authorities and clearances to do this type of work.”

            Wrong, the cleanup in the WTC was not conducted by “dumpster” and “trucking companies”. The cleanup was conducted primarily by Turner Construction, Tully Construction, and Bovis Lend LEase, which are all project management and construction companies. I do not see any evidence that these companies use some generic “assumption” about the weight of aggregate debris being equal to some “standardized” volume.

            “They know better than you what mixed heavy debris of the type present at the WTC site weighs per cubic yard. It’s their business to know.”

            Well sure, and the companies that actually did the cleanup at the WTC know better than you what the mass of the materials was that they hauled out of the WTC debris site, and they came to the conclusion that around 1.8 million tons of debris was hauled out of the WTC site and that this largely accounted for the mass of all the collapsed structures at the site.

            And they certainly did not use any so called “industry standard” based on some recommendation found on blog posts of 3rd party dumpster rental companies.

            In other words, the companies that not only do debris disposal for a living, but actually did the debris disposal at the WTC site do not agree with you, and found nothing out of the ordinary. And they are all certainly more qualified to assess that than any 3rd party general guideline published for prospective customers on the internet, or the incredulous “opinions” of some hillbilly on the internet named “RichardD”.

            “The WTC clean up was an imploded building salvage job, not a quarry operation.”

            Completely irrelevant. The texture and porousity of debris isn’t dependent on the type of location, but on the state and physical qualities of the materials being disposed.

            Regulations are followed by sorting out materials and weighing materials to be disposed of, not by blindly making assumptions about aggregate densities of rubble. Certainly not when that rubble does not only consist of “heavy debris”.

            “Just like the debris field was mixed heavy debris, not a fresh pour of
            solid concrete and steel like you tried to misrepresent it as in your
            crazy comparison.”

            Sorry, the debris field was not just made up of “mixed heavy debris”. It was made of rubble, which contains a significant amount of lighter debris and more granular pulverized material as well, which does not get classified as “heavy debris”.

            “Some granular material is present in all imploded buildings. Most of the
            mixed heavy debris is larger pieces of concrete and sections of steel.”

            Wrong, it varies from building to building, from rubble site to rubble site. In some cases, granular material is an insignificant portion of the volume of material to be cleaned up, in other cases (as we saw from the massive pulverization that occurred during the WTC collapse), a significant portion may be more granular, sand-like substances.

            “Most of the non steel material in this picture is chunks of concrete far larger than sand:”

            Unsupported assertion. I see a mixture of both very coarse, boulder sized materials to very fine, sand like material dispersed throughout that image. Of course you can’t have a really good look without zooming in.

            Here’s a more zoomed in picture, where you can clearly see that the majority of the debris pile’s mass looks a lot more like a pulverized mixture of concrete rather than “heavy debris” consisting of slabs and brigs. Thats what tends to happen when you have 500,000 tons of a skyscraper crash down from a height of 1300 feet. It’s also what happens when you have pulverized debris coming down the mountain as a result of an avalanche or a volcanic pyroclastic flow.

            https://imgur.com/a/1EuUJFR

            “It’s no different than the debris from the 31 story Ocean Tower demolition in this picture.”

            No you’re just not sufficiently zoomed in to see the granier details of the debris piles at the WTC site. The more sturdy and larger chunks of intact steel take away from the fact that much of the other material in the pile (mostly made of concrete substrates) is actually very densely packed and pulverized.

            In fact, in this very picture, if you don’t take into account the twisted beams of metal jutting out from the debris, you will notice that most of the debris is actually very granular, with a shocking lack of large intact concrete boulders anywhere. So much so, that even the giant tractors to drive up to the top of the rubble pile as if it was made of compact dirt:

            https://imgur.com/a/supisMT

            “I’ll go with the pros estimates who do this type of work full time over yours.”

            Ill go with people who actually do this job for a living (as opposed to renting out dumpsters) and who actually did the cleanup job at the WTC site and who:

            A) did not use your made up “building demolition standard” during their work.

            B) measured and accounted for all the mass that was hauled out of ground zero

            C) Do not agree with your assessments, which are completely based upon some haphazard cross eyed analysis of selected photographs.

          • RichardD

            I’ll take the consensus opinion of most judicial quality technical experts that the industry standard for weight per cubic yard of mixed heavy debris is 1 ton per cubic yard when placed in concrete dumpsters of the type primarily used in large building demolition every day as prima facia evidence over the opinion of some habitually lying comment board con artist like you.

            And I’ve applied it to visual estimates of the size of the primary debris field concentrated in the WTC court yard using the primary debris field’s horizontal and vertical dimensions using publicly available specifications of the WTC site plan and pictures taken of the crime scene showing the debris field in it’s entirety against vertical bench marks like the stories of remaining buildings. To come up with an estimate of the weight and cubic volume of the materials in the debris field that is far less than the materials that the damaged and destroyed WTC buildings consisted of. That complies with the scientific method, judicial process and judicial standards of evidence.

          • RichardD

            “Your 1,000,000 cubic yards canard has already been debunked. It is far closer to 455,000 cubic yards”

            It’s called arithmetic idiot. 1 million ton buildings reduced to 1 million tons of debris at approximately 1 ton per cubic yards equals 1 million cubic yards of debris.

          • hamster

            I already explained to you that whatever these “various industry standards” you’re using is not a valid measurement. There is not “standard” for how much building debris weighs because different buildings consist of different materials. The closest material that comes to a weight of 1 ton be 1 cubic yard is top soil, as I demonstrated to you in the previous response.

            You may understand how to do “arithmetic”, but unless you can justify the variables or use the proper equations, your arithmetic might as well be completely useless.

            There are no “industry standards” for the average weight of building rubble per square yard. I demonstrated this irrefutably and humiliated the shit out of you here.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/southfront/isis_claims_four_us_service_members_killed_in_ied_attack_in_deir_ezzor/#comment-3983612764

            Continue digging yourself a hole bitch.

            “Half of the WTC block at 7 yards deep is 200,000 cubic yards at 1 ton per cubic yard is 200,000 tons. Where did the buildings go?”

            It’s not 200,000 tons. The buildings were not built of topsoil meant for landscaping and gardening.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            Whoever does that for a living didn’t write that page up. That is an affiliated marketing website that serves as directory connecting specialists and customers. It is not an “industry” standard. Every single conversion table on the internet proves you wrong. Common sense also proves you wrong. Concrete is not only 17% heavier than water.

          • RichardD

            What is it about broken up chunks of concrete weighs a lot less per cubic yard than a solid block that you don’t understand?

          • hamster

            The fact that it’s wrong. If you broke something into 2 or 3 pieces and arranged it in a way where it forms some sort of rectangle with plenty of empty space in between, you might need a bigger volume. If you break up material in millions of different pieces and put it into a pile, the pile is not going to be much greater than the solid material and it certainly isn’t going to weigh a “lot less”. That is bullshit conjecture on your part. Unsupported assertion with zero evidence, as usual.

            2ndly, let me remind you again that whoever wrote that website got the measurement system wrong. Its 2400 lb/square yard, its 2400 kilograms/square meter.

            I pointed this out and yu have no response to it. Instead of admitting your mistake, you’re throwing something else out, hoping that it will stick. Don’t worry, I have a good memory. I will hold you to account to everything you say, and everything that you ignore in my counter argument.

            Not going to let you slide by. Enjoy your check mate, bitch.

          • RichardD

            It’s an American website, we don’t use kilograms here.

          • hamster

            It is using a conversion factor that is based on the metric system. What’s used in America is irrelevant as to whether the information is wrong. I am also in the US, and every single competent building contractor will tell you that concrete weighs approximately 4000 lbs per square yard. Not 2400.

            You only get 2400 by converting to the metric system.

            That is not a coincidence. Whoever wrote up that information in that directory likely confused the two. Maybe some foreign intern responsible for maintaining the website (and that’s all it is, an affiliate directory, not an “industry standard” site).

            A simple google search and a look at any conversion table you can find on the internet supports my position, not yours.

            You’re deeply embarrassing yourself.

          • RichardD
          • hamster

            The people that do this for a living don’t agree with you.

            https://www.budgetdumpster.com/resources/dumpster-weight-calculator.php

            Even in this poorly worded sentence, it says that the maximum “weight” is 10 tons, OR 10 cubic yards, which is a measure of volume.

            It does not explicitly say that 10 cubic yards = 10 tons of material.

            And again, a comparison of the weights of topsoil, water, and concrete poured into a volume of 1 cubic yard.

            So let see… who should I agree with…. RichardD’s “eyes” and a blogpost, or careful measurements that are done, and 10s of thousands of search results, as well as measurements of debris that were conducted by the tens of thousands of cleanup workers that were actually at ground zero?

            The industry measurement “standards” do not agree with you.

            “https://www.traditionaloven.com/conversions_of_measures/concrete-weight.html”

            False information from a blog post and an affiliate listing site evidence doesn’t bolster your argument.

            Actual standardized measurements and conversions by materials experts, with 10s of thousands of websites that agree with me, doesn’t bode well for you and 1 or 2 examples that have no backing or credibile measurements themselves.

            Go buy yourself a gallon of water. Then fill up a bucket with pulverized concrete. The weight differential will be substantial, not 17%. This is something that you can do today, and then your beloved blogpost is going to be put to shame.

          • RichardD

            1 ton of mixed heavy debris per cubic yard is the industry standard for salvage work.

          • hamster

            Mixed “heavy” debris consists of debris that are heavy, such as bricks and slabs. Mixed heavy debris does not consist of pulverized materials such as gravel or sand. As we saw in the WTC collapse, the WTC site is a mixture of heavy debris as well as granular debris which had spread out over all of lower manhattan.

            IF you have poured granular concrete sand in between large concrete chunks into a dumpster, you would go well over the weight limit, and they would likely charge you a fee or require two trips.

          • hamster

            And your basis for saying that is?

            Oh right, you’re just spouting off nonsense and what your “hunch” tells you. No evidence, no science, no measurements, no counter arguments.

            Just “you’re a liar” and “things can only happen like this because I say so”. Typical ignoramus.

          • RichardD

            You’re the proven liar, not me.

          • hamster

            I asked you what your basis for stating that is. I didn’t ask you to repeat yourself. I know it must hard to be a fucking retard, but try to follow along.

            As with all your other assertions, asserting something without a basis and trying to build an argument off of an unsupported assertion isn’t a valid way of trying to “prove” a point. You’ve proven nothing other than the fact that you can repeat yourself ad nauseum and cannot back a single claim (just like meth head Judy) when pressed on an issue.

          • RichardD

            Who’s the retard retard?

            “Half of the building in that picture is still standing”

          • hamster

            Yes, from that picture on the site you linked to, it looks like a substantial portion of the building’s internal integrity is still maintained and hence the height of the rubble is around 4 to 5 stories tall.

            Maybe a slight exaggeration on my part. It certainly isn’t standing intact. It is a collapsed building, but the rubble is porous, suggesting that the debris are not compact like they are in the WTC.

            And I explained why this would be the case, and gave 3 different reasons. You have failed to acknowledge or take into account those 3 reasons, so your comparison of apples to oranges continues to portray the workings of a desperate retard.

          • RichardD

            Does this look like 110 stories of massive steel super structure to you? It doesn’t to me:

            https://morganreynolds.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ambulance_survived_wtc1_full.jpg

          • hamster

            It looks like a collapsed 110 ft tall steel and concrete structure that was mostly hollow on the inside, the debris field of which is spread out over numerous blocks around the “footprint” of the building due to the same forces that cause pyroclastic flows. Some small portion fo the debris also collapsed into the subterranean levels underneath the building’s foundation as well.

            I am not sure what this narrow photograph of a small portion of the debris field is supposed to show me.

          • RichardD

            That’s not 267 stories of steel and concrete super structure lying on the ground. Much smaller building demolitions leave bigger debris piles than that.

          • hamster

            That’s because they’re careful building demolitions, not buildings collapsing as a result of jet liners striking into them. When you demolish a building, you whole job is to make sure that the demolition is within a controlled area (the so called “footprint” of the building to make sure the surrounding area is not damaged by debris. This is not the case in ground zero, which had debris spread out over many city blocks.

            Again though, I’d love to see what calculations you have for what the supposed “amount” of material that’s supposed to be in WTC. Not the “height”, the “amount”.

            Oh right, you don’t have any. Typical truther.

          • RichardD

            You’re lying. It’s common sense that 110 stories of collapsing building materials descending in a vertical fall leaves a much bigger debris pile in the building’s footprint than that.

          • hamster

            No it is not common sense. If I take an empty coke can and smash it into the ground, the volume of the smashed tin can is significantly smaller than the volume of the intact can.

            And again, you are repeating the same bullshit lie about the “footprint” of the building. IF the demolition of the WTC was controlled (which it wasnt) and it all collapsed into the “footprint” (the square foot area at the bottom of the building) rather than being dispersed around a large diameter, than maybe the pile of debris would be higher. However that is not the case as has already been demonstrated, since the majority of the debris field that contains the reinforced conrete and steel is dispersed in a much wider area than the “footprint”.

            Sorry, you dnt get to just make stuff up.

          • RichardD

            Any tall building coming down vertically leaves the greatest amount of material over the foot print. There’s hardly any material in the footprint. In fact the footprint is almost completely devoid of material. That doesn’t happen in a vertical collapse.

          • hamster

            “Any tall building coming down vertically leaves the greatest amount of material over the foot print.”

            Wrong, this may be true in a controlled demolition. This is not necessarily true in a collapsed building, particularly one who’s height to width ratio is very significant (which in the case of the world trade center it was).

            Do youself a favor and go build a sand castle that is 1 foot by 1 foot. If you collapse the 1 by 1 sand castle, most of the debris may end up in the “footprint” of the building. Now go build a pillar of sand 10 feet high and 1 foot in length/width. Collapse that completely. Most of the sand will not remain within the “footprint” of the building. Its more likely that some of the sand will be slightly higher near the center of the collapse rather than the peripheries, but the majority of the volume will likely be spread outside of the “footprint”.

            “There’s hardly any material in the footprint.”

            Wrong, there is substantial material at the footprint, just not the majority of it.

            “That doesn’t happen in a vertical collapse.”

            You and meth head Judy are not the arbiters of what “should” happen in any kind of vertical collapse. The amount of material and it’s distribution in any given collapse of any given building is affected by a large number of multiple factors. You did not calculate or measure any of those factors. In fact, you do not even know basic facts about what the world trade center is made of, what it’s consistency is.

            You fucking “added” the “height” of 3 different buildings to try and make some point about the “amount” of rubble. That is juvenile, elementary school thinking. Sorry but you dont get to dictate to others what does or doesn’t happen to complex physical phenomena when you don’t even have an elementary school education level when it comes to basic things like “volume” and “mass”.

            Honestly, you’re embarrassing yourself. That why people like you prefer to hide on the internet to spout their bullshit. In any live on stage debate with an actual expert, you’d walk off crying. You and meth head Julie.

          • RichardD

            If you think that 110 stories of massive steel and concrete super structure from some of the largest skyscrapers ever built came down vertically into those EMPTY footprints as every video clearly shows. Then you’ve got a screw loose.

            The reason that those footprints are empty is because most of the building material was destroyed by some type of high tech before they hit the ground.

          • hamster

            Again, they did not come into “empty footprints”. This is another bullshit lie that you’ve been peddling and you’ve been proven wrong multiple times on this. A footprint of a building is the area of the base of the building. The area of the rubble from the collapse of the WTC is much greater than the area of the footprint. There are no “empty footprints”, there is a debris field both inside and in a large radius outside of the footprint of the building. The building did not just come downwards, but it also came downwards and then got pushed outwards due to the kinetic energy of even more debris falling.

            Again, I explained this to you with the funnel and sand analogy, and as usual you ignored it and didn’t provide a response. That’s a clear sign that it is you who has a “screw loose”.

            “The reason that those footprints are empty is because most of the
            building material was destroyed by some type of high tech before they
            hit the ground.”

            Yeah except, those footprints are not “empty”, they are filled with debris higher than trucks, and the debris is spread out over multiple city blocks, and isn’t confined to the “footprint” of a building. The WTC towers also had underground subterranean levels into which a portion of the debris fell. Something I have also mentioned in my earlier response, and something that you also failed to address, because as we can all see, you’ve got a “screw loose”.

          • RichardD

            It shows a foot print of one of the towers almost completely devoid of the amount of material that should be there if a 110 story building had dropped vertically into it.

          • hamster

            No it doesn’t. It doesn’t even show the entirety of the debris field. I see debris on every corner of that picture meaning if you pan out and take an aerial shot, the area of the debris is significantly bigger than this little snippet that you carefully selected. Furthermore, the buildings did not jsut fall into their “footprint”. The majority of the debris is confined to an area much greater than the “footprints” of the buildings.

            Instead of being an dishonest little shit and cherrypicking zoomed in photographs that you selectively copied from “truther websites”, how about you actually approach these things with a critical mind:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1fb1a1d3904066c1722cee7645008ac07c2554378421ce9df445c5f6eebe0183.jpg

          • hamster

            again, what “amount” of material “should” be there, according to you? You keep stating there “should be more material”. And what do you base this one? What are your calculations? What is the estimate?

            Give me a figure in meters squared (volume) or kilograms/tons (mass).

          • PZIVJ

            That’s quite a post there, feel like I am back at school. :)
            A lot of the steel structure was compacted into 6 story basement, and also spread out. There is little evidence of concrete floors pancaking like most would assume. Instead would be turned into chunks and massive “dust” cloud. Must be from massive kinetic force because of building height and speed achieved towards ground level?

          • SurfaceBook

            it is bad when even hasbara troll dispute your claims and you fell for it.. what a sad day for you

          • RichardD

            You’re lying.

          • RichardD

            There isn’t a single WTC 911 ground zero photograph in existence showing any significant debris pile from the building’s footprints to the edge of the debris pile radius that even remotely has the amount of material in it that the buildings where constructed of.
            https://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/images/wtc_010917-n-7479t-515.jpg

          • hamster
          • RichardD

            You’ve made my point for me. There isn’t 110 stories of massive steel and concrete super structure on the ground in any of those pictures.

          • hamster

            a “story” is a measure of volume, not mass. If you collapse a building that is largely empty space, the volume of the material the building is made of is a fraction of the volume of the actual building.

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            Well Israel does arm and train Nazi Brigades in Ukraine such as called the Azov Brigade and their snipers have been found in Syria. Just a kuwinky dink if you ask me maybe, wink wink nudge nudge say no more if you know what I mean.

          • hamster

            I haven’t seen any evidence of this. Just like the “US directly supporting ISIS” claim, I suspect there isn’t any.

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            Seen an article by Haaretz even jews don’t lie all the time.

          • hamster
          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            The Lawyer is from the Weisenthal foundation article covered by Blumenthal reports etc nothing new about the open support in 2013 before the coup. It’s called research pretty easy to do no charge to get an intellectual charge of the brain.

          • SurfaceBook

            he is always hijacking comment threads in SF.. by posting off topic stuff.

            typical paid troll behaviour

          • RichardD

            You’re the lying truth hater trashing out threads with disinfo, not me.

          • hamster

            You are both delusional, obsessive compulsive conspiracy mongering morons and are most likely reclusive social rejects.

          • RichardD

            What am I deluded about?

          • hamster

            Probably troll behavior, but I hardly think it’s “paid”. Even if I had nefarious intentions and was leading some “disinformation campaign” on some obscure comments of some obscure site like Southfront and plenty of money to throw around, I’d never pay a fucking penny for such embarrassing delusion and vitriol.

            I think it’s just an embarrassing case of tinfoil hat syndrome that has reached an irreparable level.

          • SurfaceBook

            if it just troll behaviour , it is worth nothing his methods are exactly the same as those used by professioanl astroturfers like the hasbara groups who pioneer it and copied all thru the world.

            the pattern is what exposed this ‘richardD’ fellow , he frequently post ‘antisemite’ or ‘antiisrael’ post , then proceed to wreck comment sections with his off topic post in endless manner..

            this is classic method to distract people and move the focus from the discussion at hand..

            once is coincidence, repeated behavioural off topic post is not..

          • hamster

            I don’t really see the “pattern”. Posting weird or offtopic commentary on an internet board isn’t evidence indicative of some “hasbara operation”. It is fairly common behavior amongst tens of millions of low intellect people and is seen throughout every corner of the internet. That you think there’s some sort of “pattern” here that can be attributed to some grandiose conspiracy only demonstrates that you suffer from tinfoil hat delusions that are not very different from the crap he posts.

            This so called “pattern” exists only in your head.

          • SurfaceBook

            seem like you are hellbent on avoiding the obvious pattern and being overboard in defending the troll.

            more likely you are just ignorant fool or worse , his cubicle mate..

          • hamster

            There’s no “obvious pattern” though. Posting foolish offtopic conspiracy theories isn’t a pattern indicative of some sophisticated “operation”. It is just common human behavior. There is nothing “hellbent” about me stating the obvious. It’s just common sense.

            Oh and now I am his “cubicle mate”? Congratulations. You just demonstrated you’re as retarded and delusional as he is.

          • PZIVJ

            SurfaceBook also has figured me as deep planted Hasbera troll on this site.
            So join the club. :DDDD

          • hamster

            It’s so fucking bizarre how many delusional tinfoil hat idiots calling everyone, including one another “paid IDF hasbara agents”. These people have serious problems in their personal life… probably very lonely and socially awkward.

            I had another low IQ dipshit named “Lena Jones” claiming that I was getting paid shekels by the IDF from Tel Aviv to spread disinformation.

            It’s hilarious and sad at the same time.

          • PZIVJ

            Lena is a pure hater for sure.
            I think SurfaceBook is the troll here, posting against comments I made 3 days ago. I asked him to post on current, but he knows he has no support there.
            Richard is a bit strange, but he has entertainment value on this site.

          • RichardD

            I’m only strange for people not up to speed about high tech and off planet involvement in our civilization. Which is much of the human race. A time traveler from our future, I’m not one, would be considered strange in our culture if they told people about things that are true that they don’t know about.

          • SurfaceBook

            now this is exactly the hasbara SOP we saw in action today , which is a group of hasbara accounts ganging up on someone who exposed their group, then they congratulate each other.

            same pattern of action in other forums wheres hasbara trolls allowed to fester

          • RichardD

            I’m not posting foolish off topic conspiracy theories. Watch the 911 video by Dr, Wood to put my comments in context.

            Yes, SB is a very twisted person constantly telling lies and making false accusations against people.

          • SurfaceBook

            you are bending backwards trying to defend the troll whilr ignoring obvious trolling patterns of these hasbaras..

            you are nothing more than an apologist and fellow cubicle mate of these trolls..

          • hamster

            Trolling online isn’t a “pattern” indicative of anything other that the fact that someone is engaging in trolling behavior. That you think trolling automatically implies some grandiose conspiracy by “zionist hasbara agents” shows your complete lack of critical thinking skills and is indicative of extremely high levels of delusion.

            Noone is “apologizing” for anything. You’re both fucking retarded and clueless. The difference between me and both of you, is that unlike you two dipshits, I dont think either one of you is “paid” or part of some “conspiracy”. You’re both just socially awkward, sheltered losers who don’t have jobs and are incapable of functioning properly in society, and probably suffer from extreme anxiety and chronic paranoia among a host of other mental illnesses.

          • SurfaceBook

            typical answer from troll like you , who defended fellow troll with gusto and abandon.. you are exposing yourself by your tireless defense of SF hasbaras..

          • hamster

            The only thing being exposed here is your sheer lunacy and paranoia. Have a nice day, wierdo.

          • SurfaceBook

            typica hasbara , raising strawman arguments when he got exposed as liar

          • hamster

            Where did I use “strawman” arguments? I didn’t misrepresent your views. You claimed there is a pattern of behavior that is implicating some retarded lunatic as being part of some grandiose “jewish hasbara conspiracy”. You evidence for this was to show me commonplace trolling behavior. Commonplace trolling behavior is not a “pattern” you can deduce such a conclusion from. There are millions of people on the internet that love to entertain wild conspiracy theories (in case you haven’t noticed), and no, they are not all part some secret armada of IDF disinformation campaigners. That you would believe so only exposes you as another typical tinfoil hat weirdo with a 4th grade level of education devoid of all critical thinking skills. It doesn’t say anything at all about me, other than the fact that I am sharp enough to quickly and eloquently point this fact out to you.

            Btw, look at the back and forth between me and RichardD in this comments section regarding this whole 9/11 energy weapons bullshit he is peddling (well… it’s not really a back and forth… I am fucking annihilating him). And yet you think I am his “office mate”… k lol.

          • SurfaceBook

            another hasbara tricks 101 , continue the discussion into strawman arguments sin e he got exposed defending his cubicle mates at tel aviv astroturfer HQ

          • hamster

            I already asked you where did I use a strawman argument? You apparently don’t have an answer to that.

            So it must mean you’re a retard resorting to desperate measures and lying in the process. I find it very enjoyable to watch your tinhat foil morons squeal and squirm when put under any kind of scrutiny or pressure.

            Same thing happened to Richard D, where I just fucking annihilated him over the past 4 days with his bullshit “9/11 energy weapons” theory.

            And again, I’m not sure where I was defending him? I was merely not mis-characterizing what is a essentially a mental illness combined with extreme paranoia and low intelligence as “tel aviv astroturfing”. That’s not “defending” anyone.

            If you told me the behavior of a fat kid with down syndrome on the playground is resembling a “pattern” of a Satanic ritual, I’d say bullshit. It doesn’t mean I am part of some Satan worshipping cult, it just means I reside in reality while you reside in your moms basement and are content with remaining a tiny dicked virgin for the rest of your life.

          • SurfaceBook

            because you are not seeking fact and avoiding the issue , which include lying and putting up strawman arguments just to continue your lies..

            sorry , you are NOT seeking after truth , you are here to defend your hasbara mates and nothing more..

            any effort to explain things to you are totally pointless..

          • hamster

            how am I not seeking facts and avoiding the issue? I am trying to seek an answer to why you think I am a “hasbara agent” and also as to why you think I am putting up “strawman” arguments.

            I do not see where I used a strawman argument. Do you even know what the definition of a strawman argument is?

            Again, I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that I am defending “my” (?) “hasbara mates”.

            I simply observed that common trolling behavior is common and that it in and of itsself is not necessarily indicative of anything more than that.

            Any effort to explain things to me are totally pointless because you don’t have anything of substance or value to “explain” in the first place. The explanation is already available to me in witnessing your delusion and hysteria.

          • SurfaceBook

            it is a hoot watching you trying to avoid the facts , that you are just defending your hasbara cubicle mates in this circular endless strawman discussion which led to no purpose ..

            but do what you want , after all this is your day job , defending fellow astroturfers when they got exposed..

          • RichardD

            You’re correct that SB is completely off base. You’ve completely misread my work and need to start thinking on higher levels of thought to get up to speed. It’s called connecting the dots.

          • RichardD

            Look idiot, I’m not lying or trying to mislead people, which is a perquisite for being a troll. I’m trying to get at the truth to help people understand what’s happening. Identifying a problem correctly is the first step in solving it. You’re the one spamming these threads with lies and obfuscation, not me.

          • SurfaceBook

            This is another example of trolling method , pretentious anger and insults after being exposed for what he is , a troll that continuously post nonsensical off topic post in South Frony and distracting the comment section of SF.

            one typical sign of a hasbara troll is that this RichardD user Id also pretend to be a rabid anti zionist and rabid anti semite..

          • RichardD

            You’re spamming this website with lies and false accusations. You’re a disinfo troll and twisted head case.

          • SurfaceBook

            this is typical hasbara response , accusing people who exposed him as trolls..

          • RichardD

            You’re the liar, not me.

          • RichardD

            If you really believe the ignorance that you’ve written. You should educate yourself about the nexus between 911 and Isis, and some of the misuse of technology involved. I cover this material in my posts.

            Evidence of the misuse of directed energy technology on 911:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=vlkZLlzOfVQ

      • PZIVJ

        Can’t you just push them aside. :DDD

        • RichardD

          Not with a Bronco ll. If you got creative with a 6 foot pry bar that might work. But if they go over the edge, there may be a switch back underneath it below that it could stop on another section of roadway or hit someone. You can see the edge start to drop off to the right of the big rock closest to the camera.

          • PZIVJ

            Could be someone does not want you traveling in this area.
            If one where to roll onto Bigfoot or ET on switchback below, you would have your evidence at long last.:)

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            Slides happen all the time in the back country you usually get some careless ATV rider going up where they shouldn’t be and natural occurrences do happen.

          • RichardD

            Ets have purportedly been using “natural events” to direct things here for a long time. I didn’t see or hear the rock slide, but the thought did occur to me that a “coincidence” could occur. Patterson and Gimlin had similar problems trying to get out of the Bluff Creek area after they got the 67 film.

          • RichardD

            “After attempting to go out along “the low road”—Bluff Creek Road—and finding it blocked by a mudslide,[74] they went instead up the steep Onion Mountain Road, off whose shoulder their truck slipped; extracting it required the (unauthorized) borrowing of a nearby front-end loader.”

            – Patterson–Gimlin film –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film#Immediate_aftermath

        • RichardD

          You might be able to push or pull them out of the way with a 3/4 ton 4×4 diesel pickup with the right tires, locking differentials, an armored bumper and a lot of weight in the bed without damaging anything.

        • Sinbad2

          Shoot them?

        • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

          I could, but never want to show them the Hulk, green guy needs to stay inside because Hulk hurt all bad people. Or one could use some stump remover (blasting powder or a stick of dynamite) will do the trick.

          • PZIVJ

            I was thinking a hole borer with dynamite.
            No doubt Richard D is looking into this as we speak. :)

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            Well a quad with a tow strap and chain would do the job also.

          • PZIVJ

            Fallen trees and branches are the most common problem.
            Put a chainsaw in your Polaris Razor and you are good to go.

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            Made by Bombardier Canada among all their other products make good toys for big boys.

          • RichardD

            Put a 250 enduro on the back of your 4×4 like I’m doing, and just keep going.

          • PZIVJ

            I ran into bad landslide area on a very small trail.
            Could not go backwards because of fading light and steep terrain.
            So I navigated to the saddle and made a fire.
            Brrrr, that was a cold and miserable night
            But will never forget it. :D

      • BMWA1

        Just dissolve the rocks. About 1000 liters of concentrated HF should do they trick.

      • Sinbad2

        So you can use Photoshop?

        • RichardD

          Why are you harassing me with your lies and false accusations?

    • Carol Davidek-Waller

      Red herring.

      • RichardD

        How so?

  • Carol Davidek-Waller

    Not the first time U.S. nurtured terrorists have bitten them in the a__.

  • FlorianGeyer

    We must now wait for a US training accident to occur on a different continent :)

    • russ

      Yeah no kidding…

    • RichardD

      Hopefully Trump and Putin will work something out to end the war.

      • FlorianGeyer

        The problem is that the US deserves no benefits from her totally illegal destruction in Syria and President Putin likes to abide by laws.

        • RichardD

          They both recognize that the problem is Jews, not each other or their nations. Most Americans don’t support what the US is doing in Syria anymore than anyone else. They want the US out of Syria, Afghanistan and other places just like the rest of the world does.

          If they’re smart, not only will they work something out to get the US out of Syria and end the war. But also on dejudifying the planet by outlawing Judaism, closing the synagogues and yeshivas, making preparations for using nuclear weapons against Israel if it becomes necessary as part of disarming the IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet. And delisting Israel from the UN and replacing it with Palestine.

          The number one reason that positive ETs, some of whom I’m in communication with, view earth as repulsive and are refusing to help us when they could. Is our planet’s Jew vermin infestation. They’re a parasitical disease that needs to be eliminated.

          They way to do it without treating people unfairly. Is simply to outlaw it and close the facilities used to perpetuate it so that it doesn’t create more cult members, and prevents the current ones from perpetuating it s that they distance themselves from it and put it behind them.

    • Sinbad2

      The British seem to use Afghanistan to explain away casualties in Syria.

      • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

        The US and UK both do except for Canada they announced a death in Iraq but don’t participate in Syria US needs them like the Aussies training these terrorist scum in Jordan.

    • SurfaceBook

      i remember the numerous helicopter ‘accidents’ in other part of the world when ukraine conflict was at the hottest .

      • FlorianGeyer

        It seems to be a trend for NATO forces :)

  • saleh assaf (Lion from Mosul)

    Even the kaafirs say the ISIS is right and yes he is right: https://youtu.be/8EX3J7kimjk?t=6m4s

    • DaBoiiiii

      Shu Lion from Mosul, how come you’re no longer in Mosul?

      • SurfaceBook

        more like mouse from tel aviv pretending to be islamist

  • SurfaceBook

    Everyone , watch for the troll called RichardD hijacking the comment section by posting off topic stuff and skew / distract the commenters from the topic above. As usual he worked with PZIVJ a known troll.

    Hasbara / Astroturfing 101 = When you cant dispute the facts , try to put off topic post and get your fake accounts to upvote you and reply to your posts. Then insult people who question your post..

    • RichardD

      You’re the proven liar and false accuser, not me.

    • RichardD

      If you can’t see the nexus, stop doing your ostrich pose and open your eyes:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=vlkZLlzOfVQ

      • SurfaceBook

        Here is one of astroturfer to troll. by posting non topic post and thus distracting the comment section by changing focus on his posts instead of discussing the topic at hand.

        RichardD is known to do this on SF , posting off topic routinely.

        • RichardD

          Do you understand the nexus between 911 and Isis, did you even watch the video?

          • SurfaceBook

            Here’s another example of the hasbara troll continuing to post OFF TOPIC while Demanding ..DEMANDING people to reply to his nonsensical posts..

            typical hasbara troll , arrogant and ignorant of real facts while continuously peddling this lies and propaganda and nonsense repeatedly

            RIcardD is a hasbara troll that pretend to be anti zionist and hate israel but that just a cover , a smoke screen .. it’s just Hasbara 101 SOP

          • RichardD

            You are the one ignoring the nexus between 911 and Isis. That any rational person can clearly see.

            You have a long history of rejecting the scientific method, judicial process and judicial quality evidence that every human being uses to navigate their life every day. When it doesn’t support the lies and false accusations that you constantly keep spamming these threads with.

            Evidence of directed energy use on 911 using the scientific method, judicial process and judicial quality evidence provided by qualified and competent expert research and testimony:

            “Judy Wood Ph.D. is a materials scientist and former assistant professor of mechanical engineering who believes the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by a directed energy weapon.

            She earned her doctorate in materials engineering science from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1992. Her dissertation was on the topic of thermal stresses in bimaterial joints.

            From 1996-9 she was a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.

            From 1999 to 2006 she taught mechanical engineering at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina.

            Since 2006 she has been an independent researcher, lecturer and author. …

            Dr Wood’s observation of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 led her to the conviction that the towers did not collapse but were “dustified” by a directed energy weapon. According to her, dustification involves molecular dissociation and transmutation.

            In a whole series of lectures and media appearances[1], Wood has maintained that the debris pile was nowhere near tall enough to account for the aggregate mass of the towers and their contents. Rather, she states, the towers were pulverized[note 1] in mid-air and simply blew away on the breeze.

            On her web site, Wood presents a 41-point list of “The principal evidence that must be explained.” It includes (point 9) “The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth”, and (point 6) “The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.”

            – Judy Wood –

            https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judy_Wood

            I worked in heavy military electronics in my youth as a machinist and toolmaker building parts for components used in advanced electronic warfare and weapons systems, much of which is still classified.

            All that you have to do is look at the sequestered or off planet directed energy technology aspect of 911 to see the nexus between the topics that I provide comments on and the war on terror that I’m trying to help stop so that we can have a better future using these advanced technologies that are being misused by the Jew world order.

            As far as your false accusations that I’m some type of hasbara troll shilling for the Jews. That’s completely ludicrous and unfounded by anything that I’ve provided here. As any rational person whose read my work for any length of time can see.

          • SurfaceBook

            Look at this sad Hasbara troll trying hard to continue the off topic posts discussion while getting huffed up in fake anger.

          • RichardD

            Ignoring the truth as you habitually do is your choice. I can only present it. If you reject it, it’s your choice to remain ignorant and sick in the head.