Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Bathtub Nonsense

James has already pointed to this speech by Uncle Fetzer, where he essentially endorses Judy Wood's Deathstar theory, that some sort of satellite-mounted raygun brought down the World Trade Center. Now that's pretty kooky, but at least you can fantasize that it's true.

But how do these nutbars continue to make their nutty claim about the Bathtub? Fetzer says (at 3:54)

"The Bathtub was not seriously damaged. That's stunning. Think about what would have happened if the Bathtub had been seriously damaged. You would have had this massive flooding of lower Manhattan."

As most of us know from playing in the sand at the seashore, if you are close to a body of water and you start digging, you will pretty quickly hit water. Since the World Trade Center was built close to water, the basement levels had to be surrounded by what Judy Wood calls the bathtub; an impervious concrete wall that keeps out the water. This is what she claims was undamaged. Now, first of all it is obvious that it was damaged to some extent. But more important, even if it had been destroyed, there would not have been "this massive flooding of lower Manhattan." The water would have risen in the hole until it reached sea level, which is quite obviously several feet lower than ground level. Manhattan is not like the Zuyder Zee in Holland where the land is actually below sea level, and held back with dykes and seawalls.

And this guy claims to be a scientist?

70 Comments:

At 14 November, 2006 09:30, Blogger Manny said...

First things first: Let's not give Judy Wood credit for coining the term "bathtub;" it was the term from the beginning. Here's a short article about it by one of its engineers.

Second things second. Ms. Wood's "theory" is roughly coincident with a terrorist scheme to destroy the bathtub, under the mistaken impression that successfully doing so would cause a catastrophic flood throughout lower Manhattan. The very same mistaken impression that Judy Wood has. Coincidence or collaborator? I'm just asking questions.

 
At 14 November, 2006 10:21, Blogger James B. said...

It is incredible, a bunch of scientists who have never heard of elementary concepts such as entropy and bouyancy.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:01, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

entropy - the filling in the keebler cookies

Bouyancy - The cookie part

TAM:)

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gents,

I think you are missing a major part of the point. Are you not familiar with the 1992 Chicago Flood? cost the city an estimated $1.95 billion

Now, a huge amount of businesses in Chicago had their data centers below ground, which made the situation a massive liability, which wasn't necessarily duplicated around the WTC in 2001.

Nevertheless, James, your appeal to elementary concepts such as entropy and bouyancy don't apply to or mitigate what happened in Chicago. And, neigher would your silly rhetoric mitigate the severity of damage in Lower Manhatten in case of a significant "bathtub" leak.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's another reference to the liability involved:

A collapse of the slurry wall would mean inundation from the nearby Hudson River.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote from Article referenced above:

"Fortunately, the walls themselves were not damaged, did not leak, and were able to span across the damaged areas. Visual inspection of the walls in spring 2001 revealed that the walls were in good condition."

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:19, Blogger James B. said...

Inundation into the WTC complex, which last I checked were pretty much trashed anyway, not all of lower Manhattan. The walls weren't built until the 1960s, how did New York survive the previous 300 years?

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:31, Blogger James B. said...

Are you not familiar with the 1992 Chicago Flood? cost the city an estimated $1.95 billion


BTW, aside from the thousands of lives, the direct costs of the 9/11 attacks are estimated in several tens of billions of dollars, with the indirect costs approaching a trillion.

The idea that the conspirators went to elaborate lengths to avoid causing extra damage and a little flooding, is just silly.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:35, Blogger Alex said...

"Inundation into the WTC complex" would have been a problem because the article is talking about RESCUE EFFORTS. When you're trying to rescue people, it helps not to drown them by accident.

BG, where is ANYTHING written in any of those articles at all relevant? Can you show me pictures of abandoned utility tunnels which connect to the WTC? No? Didn't think so.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

You are totally missing the point, once again. The situation is totally analogous to Chicago and many other towns located near major bodies of water. The point is that once the "walls" are built, and these walls are part of the overall construction and barrier systems, the breach or failure of the constructed wall has a consequence completely unrelated to what the consequences would have been prior to that constuction.

I'm not saying Judy Wood is correct on her facts or argument.

I don't think she was suggesting a huge impact beyond the "bathtub" area. The fact is that, if flooding happened, as it would with damage to to strategic walls, there are many buildings that would require massive rehabilitation activities within the bath tub area, and the overall project to repair the area would have been enormous.

As I hope I have made clear, I don't say you have to believe Judy Wood in toto.

However, when you continue to make un-sound arguments against Judy Wood's contentions, which you are doing, it is my privilage to say Bullshit.

The fact that you don't admit your errors when exposed is not a trait that wears well on you.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:42, Blogger remdem said...

The Chicago flood is totally different. There, you had water flooding into a series of tunnels under Chicago, which rose into the basement of the buildings nearby.

Here, we have one isolated bathtub. If the bathtub had breached, we'd just have a nice little lake in lower Manhatten and I guess the PATH trains for that section would be out. That's all.

Also, why do you think a Star Wars Death Beam would do less damage to the Bathtub then the collapse? I mean, when I hear that term, I see a giant laser going straight into the ground, making a new volcano more or less. I mean, I'm not the only one who actually watched Star Wars, and what happened when the Death Star unleashed a can of kick ass on a planet?

Back on topic, the Chicago flood also did not result in instantaneous flooding of Chicago, because according to the article you linked, it had been leaking for at least a few days, if not months. Most of the shut downs were by the City itself so that no one was injured in electrical shorts or fires, etc.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:52, Blogger Jujigatami said...

BG,

Its almost nice to see your own particuar brand of smug batshit craziness back here.

Listen, I know you have never been to NYC. And that you have no idea what the towers and the whole WTC complex were like, but that doesn't mean that you get to just spout total BS like you are doing.

Lower Manhattan IS NOT BELOW SEA LEVEL! Even if the bathtub broke, it wouldn't matter! When the bathtub was built, it was several hundred yards CLOSER to the river than it is today! Battery Park City was built to stabilize the WTC Foundation. They ACTUALLY EXTENDED LOWER MANHATTAN in to the Hudson River!

EVEN IF THE BATHUB COLLAPSED LOWER MANHATTAN WOULD NOT FLOOD!

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

remdem,

1) You, too are missing the point.

a) The flooding would happen within the bathtub and might extend further, depending on how significant the damage was. I wasn't saying that the flooding would be instantaneous in NYC, any more than it was in Chicago. The fact that lives were saved in Chicago, and that it took several days, and that the tunnels were different in Chicago than they are in Manhatten is not a point that makes a difference to the ultimate amount of economic disruption and cost to clean up and repair.

b) The point of "dustification" (whether caused by exposives, beam weapon, or a combination") is crucial to how much damage would occur to nearby ground structures, particularly foundations and bath tub infrastructure. The fact, remdem, that you haven't followed "why dustification" matters, and that you show no understanding of the "energy balance" concepts that should be applied to the event disqualifies you from most of this conversation.

 
At 14 November, 2006 12:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jujigatami said...

...
1) I'll don't think any of us needs to have visited NYC to qualify for this debate.

2) I'll take the minor slap down from you as a welcome back.

 
At 14 November, 2006 12:19, Blogger James B. said...

Sorry BG, I have this annoying habit of requiring theories to actually make some sort of internal sense. Accepting this argument (science aside) requires us to accept the following two statements:

1. The conspirators, by the hundreds, were perfectly willing to kill thousands of people and cause tens of billions of dollars of property damage.

2. The conspirators went to elaborate means, even if it meant they would be exposed, because they were worried about flooding intefering with New York infrastructure.

 
At 14 November, 2006 12:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

As you know, my major issue is wanting a proper investigation.

I respect your standards. Any honest application of those standards requires a rejection of any official story we have been given.

 
At 14 November, 2006 12:59, Blogger Alex said...

I respect your standards. Any honest application of those standards requires a rejection of any official story we have been given.

Hah. The only way you can demand "an impartial investigation" is by:

1) Assuming the initial investigation wasn't impartial.
2) Assuming the initial investigation was wrong.
3) Assuming that the government was directly involved in the attacks.

None of those assumptions make the least bit of logical sense on their own, so why exactly should any of us be calling for a new investigation? On the basis of Judy Wood saying that X-ray lasers were used on the WTC? How insane are you? Have you sought help?

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:01, Blogger Manny said...

a) The flooding would happen within the bathtub and might extend further, depending on how significant the damage was.

The bathtub was small. Smaller than the WTC site. Every single building inside the bathtub was completely destroyed. Outside the bathtub lower Manhattan is built on schist covered by dirt. Unlike Chicago, underground works such as steam tunnels, electric and telephone, etc. are buried directly, not placed in tunnels or conduits. Finally, with the exceptions of the electrical substation in 7WTC (destroyed), a data center in the basement of 1 BT Plaza (abandoned) and a NASDAQ/AMEX computer system located on the east side of Broadwy (backed up in Brooklyn) I can't think of a single building east of Broadway which had the kind of vulnerabliity the CBOT and other Chicago buildings did. The situations are just not analagous. The 1 train and maybe the E and R/W are vulnerable, and then only south of Chambers.

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:10, Blogger Jujigatami said...

BG,

If you would have ever been to the WTC site, you would know exactly how far it is from the river, and you would also know that to get to the river you HAVE TO WALK DOWNHILL.

It is a slight decline, but it is a decline nonetheless.

PLUS, The Hudson River is STILL about 10 feet below groundlevel even at high tide (afterall, the Hudson River isn't really a river but a tidal estuary)

So no, you don't have to have been to NYC to have a discussion, but going there would at the very least educate you to the sheer and utter stupidity of the theory of flooding lower Manhattan.

The flood theory is so totally idiotic, so insanely stupid, and so easily refuted, its absolutely amazing that ANYONE would float it (get it, float it?).

I can't believe I'm actually saying it, but the idea of a star wars energy beam weapon destroying the WTC is actually MORE plausible than flooding lower manhattan.

And thats saying something.

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BG.

This woman claims that if the wall ruptured, it would have flooded downtown Manhattan. I myself have never been to Manhattan. However, from the pictures that I've seen of it, it appears to be sitting higher up than the Hudson river.

This woman has no understanding of Geology and Ground Water. In order for the Collapse of the WTC to break this "Bathtub" and flood Lower Manhattan it would either need to be below the level of the river, or Manhattan itself would have to sit below the Potentiometric Surface. A Potentiometric Surface, according to my book, is where the water in a confined aquifer is under the pressure of its own weight, creating a pressure level to which the water can rise on its own.

Obviously, Lower Manhattan is not below the level of the river. This leads to the next explaination. In order to flood Lower Manhattan, it would have to sit below the Potentiometric Surface for Groundwater. This would have caused the footprint of the WTC to erupt after the Tower collapsed. It would have formed and Artesian Well. However, if Manhattan sat below the Pwtentiometric Surface, it would also be below the Hudson River.

If the "bathtube" was broken, it may have flooded some of the basements of the damaged buildings and tunnels, but not Lower Manhattan.

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, others have spoken for me, so I will leave the discussion be.

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:37, Blogger troy said...

29 November 2006
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest on
"______" with host Jim Fetzer
3-5 PM/CT (4-6 PM/ET and 1-3 PM/PT)
Related: The Star Wars Beam Weapon
_____, live page, archive (mp3-1)(mp3-2)



JUDY WOOD IS SCHEDULED TO BE TALKING WITH FETZER AGAIN ON 11/29. ONCE AGAIN THEY WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE STAR WARS BEAMS.

YOU GUYS HAVE TO CALL IN.

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:38, Blogger troy said...

test

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:39, Blogger James B. said...

Troy, I have considered calling in, but after a couple of e-mail exchanges with him, I have found he is immune to reason and logic. He still repeats lies that I corrected him on months ago.

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:46, Blogger troy said...

I want to call in and ask him if he is going to be appearing on FoxNews anytime soon. I hope he says yes. Then I'm going to ask him if he could be sure to bring up the 'laser beams' from space being used to attack the WTC's.

I'd love to see Bill O'Reilly's reaction to that statement.

 
At 14 November, 2006 13:54, Blogger troy said...

I went on Clemson's website yesterday. In their Mechanical Engineering department they list 40 people. Judy Wood is listed as an assistant professor.

I called one the professors directly. A man named Sherrill. Can't remember his last name off hand. I was trying to get a comment out of him. He told me he couldn't answer my questions. I had to talk to the head who was Mr. Haque. He did however say he would talk to me in person. Too bad I live too far away.

I e-mailed 18 people at Clemson this morning in regards to Ms. Wood. The only one to respond so far is Mr. Haque, ironically.

Here is his lame repsonse to me....

Dear Mr.(leaving my last name out):

Dr. Woods is no longer a Clemson University employee.
Her views on the subject are solely her own and do not
reflect any position of the Department or the
University on this issue.

Best Regards
Imtiaz Haque



Judy must have been a real nobody. Mr Haque didn't get her last name right.

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

RolandofGilead,

You are completely ignoring the idea of flooding as it occurred Chicago.

I don't speak for Judy. I don't think she nor I (for sure) are indicating that "above sea level" flooding was the risk.

Did you even look at the link I posted to the Chicago flood?

If a "bath tub" is sunken below the "Potentiometric Surface", and a hole that opens to the river is created, are you not saying the water will flow in and "flood" the bath tub?

I don't mean to be rude, but I hope you are being stupid on purpose rather than true misunderstanding.

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judy quotes the WSJ:

According to Wall Street Journal architecture critic, Ada Louise Huxtable, this structure "…saved lower Manhattan from the waters of the Hudson River" (WSJ 9-28-06, p. D8)

Don't you get it?

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And there's this, which just devastages the idiotic arguments here:

If the slurry wall collapses because of the proximity to the Hudson River, it could cause a direct hydraulic connection to the subway network. To give you a better idea of the problem, this is a system of tunnels that is 722 miles long, much of which is below sea level (hence, the name subway).

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:27, Blogger acmefoilco said...

Jeeeez,

If the U.S. Gov had a an Alan Parsons Project laser, or beam ala "Diamonds Are Forever", don't ya think that The Emperor and Darths Cheny and Rumsfeld would have put them to better use?! Like really advancing US imperialism? I can think of a couple of dozen better uses off-hand that would net the boys..................









One Billion Dollars!!!!

Then we could afford sharks with fricken laser beams Moohahahahah!

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:29, Blogger CHF said...

LOL!

Just chatted with my conspiracy oriented friend again:

i don't need proof. I just know that the Gov was involved. that's all

He seriuosly doesn't see a problem with this....

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:33, Blogger James B. said...

Ahh, how nice of the conspirators to use their death star weapon so as to not flood the subways. Where can I send them a thank you card for their kindness and consideration?

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How much more evidence do I need to post before I hear:

Sorry, we were wrong?

This flooding could have been catastrophic if it flooded the Jersey City station known as Exchange Place. The water could have circled back through other tunnel systems and flooded all of lower Manhattan up to Canal Street.

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll keep going:

The failure or large deformation of the slurry wall may destabilize surrounding buildings and may lead to flooding of the underground space. The water may flow to NJ through the PATH tube that crosses the Hudson River.

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:48, Blogger Manny said...

And there's this, which just devastages the idiotic arguments here:

If the slurry wall collapses because of the proximity to the Hudson River, it could cause a direct hydraulic connection to the subway network. To give you a better idea of the problem, this is a system of tunnels that is 722 miles long, much of which is below sea level (hence, the name subway).


The guy gets some of his locations wrong in the photos, but is basically on point. The danger, to the extent it existed, was to the subway, like I said. The subway rises above sea level and runs immediately under the street just north of Chambers Street, also like I said. The solution was, as the web site said, "to isolate the 1&9 IRT subway line and hydraulically plug it with two concrete bulkheads." So I was apparently incorrect and overstated the potential harm to the E and the F/W lines from a breach in the bathtub. So the potential damage was less than I thought, not more, if this guy is correct. Thank you for the information.

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More?

Emergency backfilling was performed in record time to support it. What if the slurry walls had collapsed? Wall Street would have shut for a while, the entire New York City subway for years, and economically the devastation would have been unimaginable.

 
At 14 November, 2006 14:57, Blogger default.xbe said...

Judy quotes the WSJ:

According to Wall Street Journal architecture critic, Ada Louise Huxtable, this structure "…saved lower Manhattan from the waters of the Hudson River" (WSJ 9-28-06, p. D8)

Don't you get it?


an architecture critic? well i guess its as good as any other CT source

 
At 14 November, 2006 15:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Want More?

YN1 Leahy: This is actually part of Six and somewhat of Building Five. Building Six housed, I believe, Customs and a few other government agencies and also there were some small shops in the bottom level which ran along Vesey Street. Also there was a parking garage, which is what this general area is right here as you can see. Right now the reason why they haven't attacked this parking garage is because the structural integrity of the bathtub itself; the slurry wall, is being held up by this parking garage. If they take these walls down or they take the parking garage; the existing structure down, they might compromise that slurry wall and could possibly flood the zone.

 
At 14 November, 2006 15:05, Blogger remdem said...

The point of "dustification" (whether caused by exposives, beam weapon, or a combination") is crucial to how much damage would occur to nearby ground structures, particularly foundations and bath tub infrastructure. The fact, remdem, that you haven't followed "why dustification" matters, and that you show no understanding of the "energy balance" concepts that should be applied to the event disqualifies you from most of this conversation.

I don't understand energy balance? Ok, let's look at it like this. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that you are correct and the impact of the planes and the resulting fires could in no way weaken the structure for it to collapse under its own weight and that an external force was required to bring the towers down, then you would think that extra energy would go into the bathtub, right? Is that what you're telling me?

Ok, sounds good. But then we find the bathtub, it is hardly touched. It's not in a million pieces, it doesn't even look like it has any significant cracks or anything at all (another assumption, but the photos from the links provided are pretty poor). So, explain to me how a beam/explosives/whatever can impart more energy to these buildings and yet leave the bathtub untouched (making, of course, another assumption that ALL of the energy is transfered to the bathtub itself, and not wasted as heat or work on other things). As I see it, I understand the balance pretty well, that if I'm lasering/thermating/exploding a building, this energy goes somewhere else if I give an excess of the energy required to bring the building down. Since you ( and Woods) don't seem to be offering the idea this energy went anywhere else but the Bathtub I have to assume if you add explosives and lasers to the mix, then some damage is to be expected from the foundation. Again, all assuming the impact and fires alone could not cause damage, which I think they could.

Concrete, believe it or don't, also actually has a inherent strength all of its own, and it does not surprise me that the two towers, falling and impacting the general ground area, would disperse such a force in a way that could enable the bath tub (about 4 feet thick, I'm not sure) to survive it. It's not a simple matter of "A FORCE IS APPLIED AND SO THE CONCRETE JUST BREAKS". Concrete will take a certain load and still stand! Amazing! Almost like engineers thought the walls would have to have two giant skyscrapers stand on top of them and be occupied by about 4,000 people at any given time! WOW!

As the report linked by Manny shows, the walls did sustain damage, and they made an effort to repair it. In other words, the wall did develop cracks and workers fixed the cracks temporarily. So, all of this debate over why the bathtub is 'unharmed' by the 'lasers' and 'explosives' is moot.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more important things to do than honestly debate with someone who seems (assuming you believe Woods, you may not) to believe the goverment secretly placed satellites into orbit to wipe out buildings.

 
At 14 November, 2006 15:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

remdem,

The clear point is that the mass diffused (due to some major pulverization forces) into the atmosphere. If you take any time at all to read Judy's work, this is the clear contention. It may or may not be right, but come on, do a little research before mouthing off.

 
At 14 November, 2006 15:26, Blogger CHF said...

do a little research before mouthing off.

I always laugh when twoofers say shit like that.

 
At 14 November, 2006 15:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More
...cascading failure of interdependent systems in an urban environment
were almost experienced following the World Trade Center
attacks of September 11. The collapse of the World Trade Center
towers caused extensive damage to the slurry wall or ‘‘bathtub’’
that surrounded the buildings’ deep basements ~Tamaro 2002!.
Had the slurry wall failed, the likely outcome would have been
disastrous—the possible flooding and massive disruption of a
large portion of New York’s underground rail transit system on
which the City depends so heavily:
The PATH tubes were century-old cast-iron structures,
probably brittle in places, and now at immediate risk of
failure. If either of them broke catastrophically, the Hudson
River would flood into the foundation hole, filling it at high tide to a level just five feet below the street, and drowning
unknown numbers of trapped survivors. Moreover, on the
far side of the river, a wall of water would flood the Jersey
City station, and from there, via connecting rail links,
would circle uncontrollably back into Manhattan, rush
through the passages beneath Greenwich Village, and take
out the West Side subways from the southern tip of the
island nearly to Central Park. Vulnerability to sequential
flooding was a known weakness of the PATH system, and it
had been highlighted in a report circulated discreetly
among government officials after the earlier World Trade
Center attack: The parking-garage bombing of February 23,
1993. But maybe because such flooding was also something
of an apocalyptic vision—and therefore somehow
unreal—no defenses were erected against it ~Langewiesche
2002!.

 
At 14 November, 2006 15:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Manny,

My impression is you are a decent guy and rational in comparison to some commenters here.

However, going back to your first comment of this post, I've clearly proven you wrong in your assertion that the catastrophic flood was not a real concern. Clearly, reference after reference from a variety of urls (which seemingly don't have an axe to grind about 911 Truth).

 
At 14 November, 2006 15:57, Blogger Alex said...

My NWO masters just told me that they in fact WANTED to damage the bathtub because there's asbestos in the New York subway system. Unfortunately, they failed, so now Silverstein is going to have to pay billions to get all that asbestos ripped out and replaced. It sucks really. Guess our plan didn't go so perfectly after all.

 
At 14 November, 2006 16:03, Blogger Manny said...

You've shown some not-unreasonable opinions, and you've definitely proved that you can stick "wtc bathtub flood" into Google. However, you have not taken the time to examine the material beyond your quote mining, you haven't identified where they contradict each other and you haven't come to your own opinion.

I'll give you one hint that'll hopefully put you on the right track. The feared flooding of the PATH tunnels did occur, the survival of the bathtub notwithstanding. How? And yet the cascading flood into Christopher St. (and beyond) did not occur. How didn't it? In fact, the tunnel flooding didn't even seriously impact the WTC site itself? Why not?

There was a terrorist plot this summer to destroy the bathtub and hopefully (to them, of course) cause the flooding you're talking about (or other catastrophic flooding -- it's plausible to take out the subways in Greenwich Village and still not seriously damage the lower Manhattan business district). What, if anything, could the terrorists have been planning to do in addition to breaking up the wall that might have aided their plan (don't print that part if you figure it out)?

 
At 14 November, 2006 16:50, Blogger default.xbe said...

Want More?

YN1 Leahy: This is actually part of Six and somewhat of Building Five. Building Six housed, I believe, Customs and a few other government agencies and also there were some small shops in the bottom level which ran along Vesey Street. Also there was a parking garage, which is what this general area is right here as you can see. Right now the reason why they haven't attacked this parking garage is because the structural integrity of the bathtub itself; the slurry wall, is being held up by this parking garage. If they take these walls down or they take the parking garage; the existing structure down, they might compromise that slurry wall and could possibly flood the zone.


this doesnt say anything about it flooding manhattan, just the WTC complex, it also indicates the slurry was was badly damaged, which contradicts judy woods claim that it wasnt

 
At 14 November, 2006 18:22, Blogger Pat said...

BG, if Wood and Fetzer had said that the failure of the bathtub could lead to the flooding of the subway tunnels, then I'd agree with them. But Fetzer specifically said the flooding of all lower Manhattan. Note in particular that several of the articles you cited said that the bathtub had been damaged, contrary to Wood's claim. From the Tully Construction site:

The destruction of the Path Terminal and tracks which lay below the World Trade Center and the flooding of the tunnels under the Hudson River connecting the Path system in New Jersey to the World Trade Center site was devastating. This flooding damaged tracks, the electrical system, the signal system and deteriorated concrete and steel structures. This flooding could have been catastrophic if it flooded the Jersey City station known as Exchange Place. The water could have circled back through other tunnel systems and flooded all of lower Manhattan up to Canal Street. Two 19 foot thick concrete plugs were installed at the New Jersey end of the century old PATH tubes.

 
At 14 November, 2006 18:44, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

BG:

I do not recognize you, or at least, in the past you have not posted anything significant enough for me to notice.

I do not claim to have much of a clue about the topic of discussion here in terms of flooding.

That said, Judy Woods is a borderline Loony Toon. I trust nothing she has written on this, ever since she tried to convince us that the WTCs were like trees, solid through and through, and that they should have tipped over rather than collapsed.

Now this "engineer" is trying to convince people that some all powerful order of people orchestrated the use of an unknown, never seen before STAR WARS BEAM WEAPON to bring down the WTCs despite the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.

I hope she gets on TV so they can embarrass her to the point of shutting her up...JHC man be reasonable and logical here.

TAM

 
At 14 November, 2006 19:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Manny,

Just read your update. I see the meaning of your words, and credit your discussion (this latest one) as
resembling the probable truth.

If you knew all that when you made your first comment, I submit your behavior could be labeled:

1) holding back
2) duplicitous

Pat,

As I think I'm made clear here, Fetzer is sloppy. I can agree with Judy Wood, who I thought was the major target of your derision in this post, without supporting details of Fetzer's commentary.

At times, I wonder whether Fetzer's sloppiness is part of the conspiracy. As much grief as is heaped on those of us 9/11 doubters, I'd like to point out that my best assessment is that Fetzer is not part of the plot. I don't cross into what some might say is a high level of conspiracy thinking or paranoia.

Fetzer's video presentation about Wellstone is on Youtube, and one can see the same blustery combativeness in his defense of his Wellstone assessments. It seems the man's personality.

Do I think Fetzer is a great representative for 9/11 doubters?

No.

Do I believe he's spoken more about the probably truth of 9/11 in two minutes than this blog has spoken in 10 months?

Yes.

 
At 14 November, 2006 19:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

xbe,

I grant you partial credit in the validity of your points.

 
At 14 November, 2006 19:21, Blogger shawn said...

At times, I wonder whether Fetzer's sloppiness is part of the conspiracy.

So the government went back years ago to have him make crazy JFK theories to discredit him before 9/11 even happened?

Fetzer is insane. Has been for years.

 
At 14 November, 2006 19:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shawn,

Do you believe in the single bullet theory for JFK's assassination?

Do you believe the Warren Commission accounted for what happened?

 
At 14 November, 2006 20:08, Blogger shawn said...

Do you believe in the single bullet theory for JFK's assassination?

It's not a theory. (Try not to look at set-ups where they have the two men at the same elevation).

Do you believe the Warren Commission accounted for what happened?

I believe in it as much I believe gravity keeps me on the planet and that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Which means I don't believe it at all, it's what happened. It's not a matter of belief, but a matter of fact.

 
At 14 November, 2006 20:15, Blogger shawn said...

And bg, perhaps you should read up on Fetzer and his JFK theories. He says six shots were fired (three in reality, most conspiracy nuts max it at four) and that the Zapruder film is a phony.

 
At 14 November, 2006 20:47, Blogger James B. said...

You can't have it both ways BG, you manage to condemn every member of the 9/11 truth movement as nuts, yet you see no problem endorsing their core beliefs.

 
At 14 November, 2006 21:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

RolandofGilead,

You are completely ignoring the idea of flooding as it occurred Chicago.

I don't speak for Judy. I don't think she nor I (for sure) are indicating that "above sea level" flooding was the risk.

Did you even look at the link I posted to the Chicago flood?

If a "bath tub" is sunken below the "Potentiometric Surface", and a hole that opens to the river is created, are you not saying the water will flow in and "flood" the bath tub?

I don't mean to be rude, but I hope you are being stupid on purpose rather than true misunderstanding.


Before answer your insults, let me make a few things clear. I said that the tunnels and footprints would have flooded. However, Ms. Wood said that all of lower Manhattan would have been flooded. When I read something like that, I think all of lower Manhattan. The Subway system does not make up all of lower Manhattan.

Now, to answer your question about the Potentiometric surface, no, the water would not have overflowed the walls of the footprint. The Water only goes up to that level, not over. It can go below, but it cannnot go over. The only way that it would have gone over the walls and into lower Manhattan (meaning, not just the subway)would be for the Island of Manhattan to be under the Potentiometric surface. However, if this were true, all of Manhattan would be under the Hudson.

One point, the Geology of New York City is different from the geology of Chicago. Manhattan is in essense, a big rock. Comparing a flood that happened in two cities with two different Geologies is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, the may be fruit, but they do not taste the same.

Lastly, I never said that Manhattan could not be flooded. However, I doubt you would flood it by breaking the bathtube.

BTW, before you call me stupid next time, actually read my post and then look at an actual geology book. To use your own words, do a little research before mouthing off.

 
At 15 November, 2006 06:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Do you believe the Warren Commission accounted for what happened?

Shawn, it did not account for what happened. If it did, there would have been no need for the House Select Committee on Assanations to be formed. And case in point, they concluded there was a probable second gunmen and referred the case to the Justice Department. What did the JD do with the recommendation? Nothing. Make sure you ignore the numerous eyewitness testimonies and photographic evidence of said gunman and the resulting wounds and do be sure to accept the Warren Commission's report!

 
At 15 November, 2006 06:38, Blogger Manny said...

If you knew all that when you made your first comment, I submit your behavior could be labeled:

1) holding back
2) duplicitous


Well, there is a third possibility. I was going to say that third choice is that I expanded my answer because it was clear that although your hypothesis was in error it was based on completely reasonable sources and backed up by research. Essentially, that it deserved a more respectful response than most of the baseless crap that comes from CTers.

But, since you decided to be a dick about it, I'll just say that I was delivering a raging clue to a retard.

 
At 15 November, 2006 08:00, Blogger Alex said...

I've never heard of a Committee on "Assanations", but I would assume they'd be studying swinger rather than JFK....

 
At 15 November, 2006 09:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

What's up Alex?

 
At 15 November, 2006 09:19, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex, For once in our discussions you are correct!
Assassination. Sorry for the typo in the earlier post. Thanks for the catch my good friend!

 
At 15 November, 2006 09:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

I don't agree at all that Jim Fetzer is nuts. I'm not saying that.

I don't think Alex Jones is nuts.

However, they both has issues in their style that means they will polarize any audience. I'm thinking of Alex much more than Jim when I say this.

In the case of Alex, he is stuck with his "fear mongering" radio show, which has an interest in raising anxiety more than focusing on criminal investigation.

Fetzer's backgound as a JFK researcher leads him to expect that his audiencewould be able to see the general pattern of clear high level manipulations. Honestly, if you haven't studied the JFK assassination and seen the problems with the official story, then it's no wonder that you ignorantly resort to name calling.

 
At 15 November, 2006 09:48, Blogger Alex said...

If you HAVE studied the JFK assassination, and you still think it's a conspiracy, it's no wonder you think that Zionists Illuminati Mossad agents used a CIA satellite to zap the WTC with a star wars beam in order to take a bath. Or whatever silly thing you've come up with today. I'm starting to lose track of all your insane theories.

 
At 15 November, 2006 09:59, Blogger shawn said...

House Select Committee on Assanations to be formed.

And they made mistakes on the acoustic evidence (HSCA that is). Perhaps you should study the case more closely?

resulting wounds

...the wounds are consistent with shots from the Texas Book Depository. In fact, the only place where the "magic bullet" could originate is from Oswald's perch (because, if you recall, there were three shots, with one being a miss).

If you knew ANYTHING you'd know that the "photography" of the second gunman (which is really not a man at all) would place his height at about three and a half feet and that if he shot Kennedy, the bullet would've hit him in the side of the head. Both the first hit and the kill shot come from behind (it's absolutely impossible for them to come from the front or side).

Honestly, if you haven't studied the JFK assassination and seen the problems with the official story

See what's funny is I believed in the inane conspiracies BEFORE I studied the assassination. After I educated myself I was pissed at how stupid I had been.

There is absolutely no way that one looks at all the evidence and believes anyone but the lone gunman Oswald shot at Kennedy.

 
At 15 November, 2006 10:53, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

Fetzer thinks beam weapons destroyed the WTC, Alex Jones thinks everything is a government plot and you think their problem is style???

Shakespeare himself could rise from the dead and recite Fetzer's theories and they'd be just as retarded.

Seriously, bg - seek help.

 
At 15 November, 2006 11:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to side with BG on this one, but I remember seeing some program on the History or Discovery channel where water had gotten into a few of the PATH tunnels.

I'm not sure what the elevation is of Manhattan's subway system, but considering a solid day of heavy rain can sometimes disrupt service here, I'd imagine any kind of flooding of the system could be labeled as catastrophic for the city.

 
At 15 November, 2006 18:01, Blogger pomeroo said...

Gee, Swing Dangler, it's nice to know that nothing has happened in the world of JFK assassination kooks since 1978. Here on Earth, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and he acted alone. As Posner wrote in the second edition of his definitieve work, "Case still closed."

 
At 16 November, 2006 11:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo said...

Gee, Swing Dangler, it's nice to know that nothing has happened in the world of JFK assassination kooks since 1978. Here on Earth, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and he acted alone. As Posner wrote in the second edition of his definitieve work, "Case still closed."

Posner is simply wrong on this issue.

 
At 16 November, 2006 15:50, Blogger shawn said...

Posner is simply wrong on this issue.

Case Closed is the single best work on the JFK assassination. I'm not arguing anything, I'm stating a fact.

It's ok bg, you can believe in fantasies if you want. It's a free country, after all.

 
At 16 November, 2006 16:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't Get me started on the Kennedy Assassination.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home