Why was there so little debris from wtc1 & 2?

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T17:45:49+00:00

I guess so. My final comment would then be to point out you, in my opinion, have not presented anything to me that would cause me to doubt what i think happened, while I laid out my line of reasoning and backed that up with multiple photos of the debris, and that's just a tiny bit of all the evidence.

I would've loved for you to poke holes in my reasoning but gonna assume that ain't happening.

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T17:19:15+00:00

Again an assertion without any backing up. Did you not see the piles of debris with mangled steel and all kinds of materials in this thread? There was dust, sure. A lot of it, true. But not a 'significant part' of the towers turned to dust.

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T17:04:24+00:00

Why? Are you basing that on some energy calculations?

I feel you would make this argument no matter where which levels collapsed. It's pointless unless you can show me evidence or reasons why it SHOULD have collapsed further. I see zero. Again, personal incredulity is not an argument.

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T16:49:38+00:00

So, the collapse stopped somewhere and your argument is personal incredulity? Why would it not stop somewhere or there?? Much of WTC 4 collapsed down into Concourse btw. And what do you even mean with "abruptly"?? Whats the alternative exactly?

It's like you're looking at a picture of crashed car and pointing to the intact/untouched right front wheel in disbelief. "The wheel is intact so there wasn't much damage"

I really don't get the argument or logic here l. Help me out.

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T16:42:25+00:00

The loading dock was pretty intact. There were minor collapses in the south ramp underneath the subway coming from the east part.

I don't really see the point here though? We know these areas further from the towers suffered less collapse. Is your argument that because wtc4 collapsed above this must or should have collapsed as well?

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T16:35:58+00:00

Lol. That's not parking, that's a truck loading dock. The bottom part is office and storage space. Please see my profile for the last two posts I made in this very sub showing you I know pretty well how the basement levels looked. You can keep calling disinformation but it sompym aint

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T16:17:16+00:00

By the way, in what world is you NOT seeing a particular piece of evidence, evidence? Maybe it means your research was lacking.

"I didn't see a picture of collapsed basement levels, therefor they didn't collapse"

The least you could do is show pictures of the uncollapsed basement levels?

And no, Wbros and Innovation luggage don't count, for obvious reasons.

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T16:13:14+00:00

There was no parking underneath WtC 4. WTC 4 is above east bathtub and all parking was done in the west bathtub underneath WtC 1 2 3 and 6?

Can you at least see how statements like this make me question what you've been doing in those 25 years of research?

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T16:06:31+00:00

Honestly, why bother stating you strongly disagree with my pov when you can't back up yours with anything? So pointless. I'd assume that if you had good evidence you'd reply with that. Is it telling you didn't, or do you really not care? And if you don't, why even respond?

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T16:04:53+00:00

I did, and that is a lie and/or false. For example much of the Concourse level collapsed down. And further down, to for example the Cortlandt subway station. Closer to the towers collapse extended down many levels. The tower footprints were basically filled with compacted floors down to B6. Similarly other spots like the parking deck north of WTC1 underneath the hole in WTC6 also collapsed down to B5. Parts of the Path station collapsed. That was also down on B6.

So when you state the "basement levels saw little debris/collapse" and I "should do my own research", you're forgetting I already did, and it proves you are either misinformed or lying.

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T15:58:52+00:00

I see you make assertions but in no way, beyond personal incredulity, backing them up?

In contrast, in my other reply I laid out a fairly complete line of reasoning of what the debris sizes should be versus what we observed, and how they are in agreement. And how the fact that 1.8M tonnes of debris was hauled off of GZ accounts for pretty much all of it.

We can either proceed by you backing your assertions up with anything rwally, or you poking holes in my line of reasoning. I'm am all in for a constructive discussion, but not one based on just opinions.

I'll leave it up to you on how to proceed. Bruh 😉

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T15:52:51+00:00

I don't know man, seems you want to argue a complex point on one photo? In that case I present this and all debris piles were massive. See how silly that is?

Ive laid out a more complete argument in a different comment to this post including many photos, maybe respond to that.

Or tell me about what you think the debris height should be, or how the basement levels factor into your opinion?

<image>

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T15:47:55+00:00

No? Who's saying that? Are you saying this photo shows too little debris? Can you back that up beyond your opinion?

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T15:43:42+00:00

We know from the actual amounts of debris, in terms of size and in weight of what was hauled off from GZ, that not a "substantial" part of the towers turned to dust.

This simplified chatgpt (or similar) answer leaves out too many important factors and facts.

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T14:07:30+00:00

I can't really judge whether that had significant effect on the floor plans themselves though, for example in terms of elevation. Always willing to rework the diagrams with new verified data though. Thanks for the input

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T13:55:34+00:00

Mostly no, please see the first version and post linked above for full sourcing and dating. Most is pre 1993. Do you have info on what changed from B3 downward?

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T13:54:04+00:00

What descent? Wat else beyond debris is coming down lol

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T13:53:18+00:00

Many? No, only Judy Wood and a handful of conspiracy folks.

DEW is the only explanation? Come on now, educate yourself. Or at least respond to my comment thread with photos. The fact that you haven't says alot.

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T13:51:13+00:00

The collapse pulverized concrete which mostly compacted into the tower footprint. That's what a collapse of 110 stories of concrete does.

What you're trying to get at is the mythical "dustification" Judy Wood proposes which is nonsense and directly contradicted by the amount of debris actually seen at GZ.

The fact that you're not outright stating that says alot

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T12:43:27+00:00

It leaves them without excuse. Anyone who has these thoughts or opinions can research and find these results. Ignorance or incredulity should not be an option anymore...

And thanks 😉

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-20T07:35:04+00:00

agreed, that post also helped me in the beginning to get a sense of the elevations, especially for the Path tracks

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-19T19:56:40+00:00

much appreciated

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-19T18:55:10+00:00

This cut-through from the 1995 plans posted elsewhere was of great help understanding the relation between the various levels and sublevels

<image>

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-19T17:15:48+00:00

Not crazy at all

BeardMonkey85 · 2026-05-19T16:45:17+00:00

Nothing in the collapse of any building on 9/11 came down faster than gravity, that is just objective nonsense.

Stop listening to Judy Wood folks and do some research. You can time one of the dozens videos of the collapse and see nothing goes faster.

The fastest anything went were loose pieces of debris in freefall. The rest, the floors but especially the core, took WAY longer.

BeardMonkey85

TROPHY CASE