[Split]Another WTC7 thread: CD, richter scale, Sadam... Split from: Hoffman v Mackey

[Galileo]

I don't know about WTC 1 & 2, but there's a video of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 that I've seen. Have you guys on this thread heard of WTC 7? I've been told that it was not hit by an airplane, can anyone confirm this? Because if it were hit by an airplane, that might explain why it fell down.

[SpitfireIX]

I don't know about WTC 1 & 2, but there's a video of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 that I've seen. Have you guys on this thread heard of WTC 7? I've been told that it was not hit by an airplane, can anyone confirm this? Because if it were hit by an airplane, that might explain why it fell down.


No, it wasn't "hit by an airplane." It was, however, struck by large pieces of falling debris from a collapsing 110-story skyscraper.

[jaydeehess]

I don't know about WTC 1 & 2, but there's a video of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 that I've seen. Have you guys on this thread heard of WTC 7? I've been told that it was not hit by an airplane, can anyone confirm this? Because if it were hit by an airplane, that might explain why it fell down.

Actually there are several videos of WTC 7 collapsing. It is your opinion that characterizes it as a demolition.

No plane going 500 mph hit that 47 storey building. Instead pieces of a 110 storey building going 100 mph hit that building. Perhaps you are familiar with the NIST report appendix 7 which is the preliminary report on that structure. If so then you are also familiar with the fact that it was a building constructed over an existing building and thus was essentially a 40 storey structure built on stilts over a 7 storey structure. You would also be aware of the multiple fires that were not fought by the NYFD at all that day. You would be aware that the FD knew the building was unstable, was creaking and swaying moments after the collapse of WTC 1.

Is that what you were getting at?

[Par]

I don't know about WTC 1 & 2, but there's a video of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 that I've seen.


I think you might be begging the question there. Petitio principii, yo.

[Galileo]

Actually there are several videos of WTC 7 collapsing. It is your opinion that characterizes it as a demolition.



Not my opinion, I was told it was a controlled demolition and it looked like one to me. What's the big deal, I think bin Laden did it. I know he tried to blow up the Towers back in 1993.

[Par]

Because if [WTC 7] were hit by an airplane, that might explain why it fell down.


Right. So you acknowledge that being struck by an aircraft can cause a building to collapse. Well, that’s progress, at least.

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=jaydeehess;3719353]You would be aware that the FD knew the building was unstable, was creaking and swaying moments after the collapse of WTC 1.

[QUOTE]

I read that the when the Twin Towers fell, they generated eartquakes on the scale of 2.2 on the Richter scale. That's only 1/4 of what the San Fran earthquake was, I think it was 8.8.

So, yes, I can see that the powerful ground shaking made WTC 7 swing side to side.

[Par]

Not my opinion, I was told it was a controlled demolition and it looked like one to me.


Yeah. Who needs The Enlightenment anyway?

[Galileo]

I think you might be begging the question there. Petitio principii, yo.

err, I wasn't begging any question, I was just saying I saw a video of a controlled demolition. Maybe you saw a different video than I did.

[Galileo]

I think you might be begging the question there. Petitio principii, yo.

err, I wasn't begging any question, I was just saying I saw a video of a controlled demolition. Maybe you saw a different video than I did.

[Spud1k]

[QUOTE=jaydeehess;3719353]You would be aware that the FD knew the building was unstable, was creaking and swaying moments after the collapse of WTC 1.

[QUOTE]

I read that the when the Twin Towers fell, they generated eartquakes on the scale of 2.2 on the Richter scale. That's only 1/4 of what the San Fran earthquake was, I think it was 8.8.

So, yes, I can see that the powerful ground shaking made WTC 7 swing side to side.

Actually, the Richter scale is logarithmic, so 2.2 is actually about a 4 millionth of the power of a 8.8 earthquake, so I doubt that had anything to do with it.

[Par]

I read that the when the Twin Towers fell, they generated eartquakes on the scale of 2.2 on the Richter scale. That's only 1/4 of what the San Fran earthquake was, I think it was 8.8.


False. The Richter scale is an exponential scale. A magnitude 8.8 earthquake is not four times more powerful than a magnitude 2.2. Rather, is it over a billion times more powerful. So, you were only out by a factor of a quarter of a billion.

[R.Mackey]

You would be aware that the FD knew the building was unstable, was creaking and swaying moments after the collapse of WTC 1.


I read that the when the Twin Towers fell, they generated eartquakes on the scale of 2.2 on the Richter scale. That's only 1/4 of what the San Fran earthquake was, I think it was 8.8.

So, yes, I can see that the powerful ground shaking made WTC 7 swing side to side.

The Richter Scale is logarithmic -- to base ten in displacement, and roughly base 32 in power. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (7.8?) was about 200 million times as powerful.

I think that error speaks for itself.

ETA: Ooh! 3x crit! That'll leave a mark.

[Galileo]

The Richter Scale is logarithmic -- to base ten in displacement, and roughly base 32 in power. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (7.8?) was about 200 million times as powerful.

I think that error speaks for itself.

ETA: Ooh! 3x crit! That'll leave a mark.

I thought you said WTC 7 was creaking and swaying. Because the airplanes that hit the Twin Towers barely made them sway at all.

In fact, I couldn't see any swaying at all after the plane hit WTC 1 on TV. But you said the witnesses could see WTC 7 swinging side to side.

[Par]

I don't know about WTC 1 & 2, but there's a video of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 that I've seen.I think you might be begging the question there. Petitio principii, yo.err, I wasn't begging any question, I was just saying I saw a video of a controlled demolition. Maybe you saw a different video than I did.


Well you actually said that you had seen a video of the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7. In any event, are you saying that there are some videos in which World Trade Center 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition and some in which it was not?

[jaydeehess]

[QUOTE=jaydeehess;3719353]You would be aware that the FD knew the building was unstable, was creaking and swaying moments after the collapse of WTC 1.

[QUOTE]

I read that the when the Twin Towers fell, they generated eartquakes on the scale of 2.2 on the Richter scale. That's only 1/4 of what the San Fran earthquake was, I think it was 8.8.

So, yes, I can see that the powerful ground shaking made WTC 7 swing side to side.

Wow such a display of ignorance of the richter scale is quite telling. here's a hint; its NOT a linear scaling.

A level 8 is not twice as powerful as a level 4. In fact a level 5 is ten times the power of a level 4.

Of course calculus was invented several centuries after your first run on this plane of existance so its obvious that you would be a bit backward

ETA: darn my slow typing skills. Everyone beat me to it

[Galileo]

Well you actually said that you had seen a video of the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7. In any event, are you saying that there are some videos in which World Trade Center 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition and some in which it was not?

I've only seen one video of the controlled demolition. It seems like a big job for terrorist groups, I'll bet Saddam Hussein was behind it. That's why we killed him, for killing our people.

[jaydeehess]

err, I wasn't begging any question, I was just saying I saw a video of a controlled demolition. Maybe you saw a different video than I did.

You saw a video that you were told illustrates that it was a demolition. I, and many others here are telling you that it wasn't. Now explain why you believe the person who said it was rather than those of us who say it wasn't.

THAT is basically the question you are begging!

[R.Mackey]

I thought you said WTC 7 was creaking and swaying. Because the airplanes that hit the Twin Towers barely made them sway at all.

In fact, I couldn't see any swaying at all after the plane hit WTC 1 on TV. But you said the witnesses could see WTC 7 swinging side to side.

Looks like you too need to read NCSTAR1-5A Appendix K. The sway of the Towers after impact was both significant and measureable.

[Spud1k]

The Richter Scale is logarithmic -- to base ten in displacement, and roughly base 32 in power. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (7.8?) was about 200 million times as powerful.

I think that error speaks for itself.

ETA: Ooh! 3x crit! That'll leave a mark.

Oops. I said base 10 in power, but you're right, it's actually displacement.

Point still stands though; it's not a factor of 4 by any means...

[Par]

I've only seen one video of the controlled demolition.


Whether or not the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was the result of a controlled demolition is a crux question at issue. Thus, in claiming that you have seen “one video of the controlled demolition” you are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Please refrain from doing so. (Further, please also refrain from devolving into babyishness.)

[Galileo]

You saw a video that you were told illustrates that it was a demolition. I, and many others here are telling you that it wasn't. Now explain why you believe the person who said it was rather than those of us who say it wasn't.

THAT is basically the question you are begging!

you don't know what video I'm talking about, so how would you know that anything has been brought into question? From the people who have seen it, there hasn't been any question. We were speculating whether Osama or Saddam did it, or perhaps it was engineered for safety reasons. Everyone agrees the video I saw was a controlled demolition, the TV announcer even said it was. You must be talking about a different WTC building. Maybe WTC 8 or WTC 9, they weren't hit by planes either.

[Spud1k]

It's easy to say WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition, just as it is easy to say that I've seen someone who looked like Elvis. Doesn't mean the king is still alive.

[Galileo]

Whether or not the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was the result of a controlled demolition is a crux question at issue. Thus, in claiming that you have seen “one video of the controlled demolition” you are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Please refrain from doing so. (Further, please also refrain from devolving into babyishness.)

Ahem! I've been on a lot of conspiracy websites where they defend the terrorists, but I've never heard anything like this before. Are you saying Saddam Hussein DID NOT blow up the WTC to kill people? I really can't imagine anyone defending Saddam, he is evil. If Saddam did not do it, who did? Bin Laden? I did not think the evil nature of these terrorists could be brought into question.

[Spud1k]

you don't know what video I'm talking about, so how would you know that anything has been brought into question? From the people who have seen it, there hasn't been any question. We were speculating whether Osama or Saddam did it, or perhaps it was engineered for safety reasons. Everyone agrees the video I saw was a controlled demolition, the TV announcer even said it was. You must be talking about a different WTC building. Maybe WTC 8 or WTC 9, they weren't hit by planes either.

This'd be much simipler if we knew what you were talking about. Do you have a Youtube link or something?

[Galileo]

It's easy to say WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition, just as it is easy to say that I've seen someone who looked like Elvis. Doesn't mean the king is still alive.

I find it highly unlikely that the TV announcer would say it was a controlled demolition, it would look like a controlled demolition, everyone would agree it was a controlled demolition, and the announcer would say the terrorists did it because they hated our economic centers of capitalism, if it weren't a controlled demolition. I suppose if a hijacked plane hit it, but why would the TV man not say this?

You'd have to prove this wrong for me to believe you.

[Par]

Ahem! I've been on a lot of conspiracy websites where they defend the terrorists, but I've never heard anything like this before. Are you saying Saddam Hussein DID NOT blow up the WTC to kill people? I really can't imagine anyone defending Saddam, he is evil. If Saddam did not do it, who did? Bin Laden? I did not think the evil nature of these terrorists could be brought into question.


I see. You made a mistake (several, in fact) and rather than face up to it you’d rather start acting like a total moron. Well, all right.

[Par]

I find it highly unlikely that the TV announcer would say it was a controlled demolition, it would look like a controlled demolition, everyone would agree it was a controlled demolition, and the announcer would say the terrorists did it because they hated our economic centers of capitalism, if it weren't a controlled demolition.


Well, possibly. But that didn’t happen. So it’s by the by, really.

[SpitfireIX]

Ahem! I've been on a lot of conspiracy websites where they defend the terrorists, but I've never heard anything like this before. Are you saying Saddam Hussein DID NOT blow up the WTC to kill people? I really can't imagine anyone defending Saddam, he is evil. If Saddam did not do it, who did? Bin Laden? I did not think the evil nature of these terrorists could be brought into question.


Non sequitur, appeal to emotion, straw man. Congratulations on the hat trick. :rolleyes:

[Galileo]

I see. You made a mistake (several, in fact) and rather than face up to it you’d rather start acting like a total moron. Well, all right.

did you know your logo is upside down?

[Galileo]

Non sequitur, appeal to emotion, straw man. Congratulations on the hat trick. :rolleyes:

No, I'm just saying if we could prove Saddam Hussein blew up the WTC, we could prove the conspiracy theorists wrong. Did the FBI ever find any evidence? I would seem so, since he was captured and executed for serious crimes.

The reason I think Saddam did it, is because we have not charged bin Laden with doing it.

[Alt+F4]

I don't know about WTC 1 & 2, but there's a video of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 that I've seen. Have you guys on this thread heard of WTC 7? I've been told that it was not hit by an airplane, can anyone confirm this? Because if it were hit by an airplane, that might explain why it fell down.

You must mean a video of WTC7 being wired for demolition and someone pushing down the detonation plunger, right? Please provide a link to this video, thanks.

On September 11, 2001 St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (next to the WTC) collapsed, yet no plane hit it. Are you suspicious?

[Par]

That reminds me of when MAGZ claimed that he saw footage of an Israeli octo-copter firing two Stars of David into World Trade Center 7.

[applecorped]

No, I'm just saying if we could prove Saddam Hussein blew up the WTC, we could prove the conspiracy theorists wrong. Did the FBI ever find any evidence? I would seem so, since he was captured and executed for serious crimes.

The reason I think Saddam did it, is because we have not charged bin Laden with doing it.

You might want to stop while you are way behind. It's only going to get rougher. Just a suggestion.

[Galileo]

You must mean a video of WTC7 being wired for demolition and someone pushing down the detonation plunger, right? Please provide a link to this video, thanks.



I don't have a video, I saw it on TV. The terrorists probably did not have a detonation plunger or wires. They must have snuck into the building in the morning and loaded it with bombs. I know that some of the bombs went off at 9 AM and almost killed Barry jennings and Mike Hess. Someone turned off the alarm system at 6:47 AM so the terrorists could hide the bombs without being caught. They probably paid off the security man with oil money to do it, and then killed him with the bombs. Saddam was an oil man.


On September 11, 2001 St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (next to the WTC) collapsed, yet no plane hit it. Are you suspicious?

Not really, the WTC probably fell on it. Poor church.

[applecorped]

I don't have a video, I saw it on TV. The terrorists probably did not have a detonation plunger or wires. They must have snuck into the building in the morning and loaded it with bombs. I know that some of the bombs went off at 9 AM and almost killed Barry jennings and Mike Hess. Someone turned off the alarm system at 6:47 AM so the terrorists could hide the bombs without being caught. They probably paid off the security man with oil money to do it, and then killed him with the bombs. Saddam was an oil man.



Not really, the WTC probably fell on it. Poor church.

You are going to get your a** handed to you if you continue to post nonsense. I'm just trying to help. You picked the wrong site to promote this nonsense.

[Par]

You must mean a video of WTC7 being wired for demolition and someone pushing down the detonation plunger, right? Please provide a link to this video, thanks.That reminds me of when MAGZ claimed that he saw footage of an Israeli octo-copter firing two Stars of David into World Trade Center 7.I don't have a video, I saw it on TV. The terrorists probably did not have a detonation plunger or wires. They must have snuck into the building in the morning and loaded it with bombs. I know that some of the bombs went off at 9 AM and almost killed Barry jennings and Mike Hess. Someone turned off the alarm system at 6:47 AM so the terrorists could hide the bombs without being caught. They probably paid off the security man with oil money to do it, and then killed him with the bombs. Saddam was an oil man.


Yeah. That basically is the same as MAGZ' theory. Except that in his, the explosions almost killed Rudolph Hess.

[Galileo]

Yeah. That basically is the same as MAGZ' theory. Except that in his, the explosions almost killed Rudolph Hess.

FYI

Rudy Hess was a Nazi. He was a bad man, but I don't think he did the WTC as he died in the 1980s. He could have set the bombs at that time, during the Reagan administration, but I doubt it.

I have heard of links between Bush family and the Nazis, but these are not confirmed.

Perhaps you confused Rudy Hess with Rudy Giuliani.

What we do know is that someone set the bombs, and I suspect the terrorists. Was the 9/11 Commission able to pin this on them?

[beachnut]

I don't know about WTC 1 & 2, but there's a video of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 that I've seen. Have you guys on this thread heard of WTC 7? I've been told that it was not hit by an airplane, can anyone confirm this? Because if it were hit by an airplane, that might explain why it fell down.
Sorry, you are wrong and have no evidence. But you will post lot of false information and then disappear again. You have no evidence.

No bombs, your fantasy was dead over 6 years ago.

[slyjoe]

You are going to get your a** handed to you if you continue to post nonsense. I'm just trying to help. You picked the wrong site to promote this nonsense.

I see you joined in Mar 2008. Gallileo has been here before. Gallileo will continue to get his a** handed to him; I think he enjoys it. For stunning nonsense, search for some of his earlier posts, if you can bear the odd mix of mental illness and humor.

[Galileo]

Sorry, you are wrong and have no evidence. But you will post lot of false information and then disappear again. You have no evidence.

No bombs, your fantasy was dead over 6 years ago.

I never claimed to have any evidence. I just said I saw the terrorists blow up the WTC, like everyone else that day. They tried in 1993, then finished the job in 2001. I do not know what you are arguing about. The man who wrote the paper that began this thread already explained that the WTC was blown up, and he is an expert on the subject. I defer to experts.

The issue at hand is whether bin Laden, Saddam, or George Bush did it. The conspiracy theorists say Bush did it, but I say it was Saddam, while others here seem to lean towards bin Laden.

It says right at the beginning that this is a three-way debate, and we all agree that we saw the WTC on TV being knocked down.

[beachnut]

I never claimed to have any evidence. I just said I saw the terrorists blow up the WTC, like everyone else that day. They tried in 1993, then finished the job in 2001. I do not know what you are arguing about. The man who wrote the paper that began this thread already explained that the WTC was blown up, and he is an expert on the subject. I defer to experts.

The issue at hand is whether bin Laden, Saddam, or George Bush did it. The conspiracy theorists say Bush did it, but I say it was Saddam, while others here seem to lean towards bin Laden.

It says right at the beginning that this is a three-way debate, and we all agree that we saw the WTC on TV being knocked down.
No one blew up the WTC on 9/11; two planes flew into them. Sorry, you can take your bomb fantasy and no evidence and try again.

UBL did it; do you not listen to him? Darn he warned us in the 90s by saying he would kill Americans, guess you missed that too.

So your bomb junk is wrong, no matter how you try to veil it.

[Galileo]

No one blew up the WTC on 9/11; two planes flew into them. Sorry, you can take your bomb fantasy and no evidence and try again.

UBL did it; do you not listen to him? Darn he warned us in the 90s by saying he would kill Americans, guess you missed that too.

So your bomb junk is wrong, no matter how you try to veil it.

No, I said they blew up WTC 7. You are correct, two planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.

The terrorists went into WTC 7 and knocked all the fireproofing off the columns, dumped gasoline into the building to start a fire, then cut some of the core columns.

Then we saw it come down in a controlled demolition. It would take a large, dangerous terrorist network to pull this off. I'm glad they passed the Patriot Act. Since they passed the Patriot Act, we have not been attacked, so we know it's working.

[Galileo]

No one blew up the WTC on 9/11; two planes flew into them. Sorry, you can take your bomb fantasy and no evidence and try again.

UBL did it; do you not listen to him? Darn he warned us in the 90s by saying he would kill Americans, guess you missed that too.

So your bomb junk is wrong, no matter how you try to veil it.

You are wrong, Saddam did it, not Osama. We went to capture Saddam, not bin Laden.

Osama has not been charged and I never believe what terrorists say, anyway. They are liars!

[SpitfireIX]

No, I said they blew up WTC 7. You are correct, two planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.

The terrorists went into WTC 7 and knocked all the fireproofing off the columns, dumped gasoline into the building to start a fire, then cut some of the core columns.

Then we saw it come down in a controlled demolition. It would take a large, dangerous terrorist network to pull this off. I'm glad they passed the Patriot Act. Since they passed the Patriot Act, we have not been attacked, so we know it's working.


:troll

[Galileo]

You are wrong, Saddam did it, not Osama. We went to capture Saddam, not bin Laden.

Osama has not been charged and I never believe what terrorists say, anyway. They are liars!

Now that I think about it, maybe it was Osama. I forgot that we also went into Afghanistan. At some point we must have switched.

[HyJinX]

I never claimed to have any evidence. I just said I saw the terrorists blow up the WTC, like everyone else that day. They tried in 1993, then finished the job in 2001. I do not know what you are arguing about. The man who wrote the paper that began this thread already explained that the WTC was blown up, and he is an expert on the subject. I defer to experts.

The issue at hand is whether bin Laden, Saddam, or George Bush did it. The conspiracy theorists say Bush did it, but I say it was Saddam, while others here seem to lean towards bin Laden.

It says right at the beginning that this is a three-way debate, and we all agree that we saw the WTC on TV being knocked down.

You're so funny when you're drunk. You are trying to be funny here, right?

[beachnut]

You are wrong, Saddam did it, not Osama. We went to capture Saddam, not bin Laden.

Osama has not been charged and I never believe what terrorists say, anyway. They are liars!
Wrong again, you can't get anything about 9/11 correct; why?

Saddam was shooting our planes and being a general idiot; Saddam did not do 9/11. UBL did 9/11, he said he did, and he warned us in the 90s he would kill Americans when he found the time! UBL is wanted for 9/11, you need to read the reason, but you may not have what it takes to understand the FBI statement, it says he is wanted, but you may miss it.

So you have nothing right yet! Keep up the good work. You can only do as bad as you are or luck out and get something right.

[Par]

Now that I think about it, maybe it was Osama. I forgot that we also went into Afghanistan. At some point we must have switched.


You adopted this same sort of behaviour during your last stint on this forum.

At this point, "Galileo" reminds me of a fatigued child who’s just lost at chess and hasn’t taken it very well. He’s started moving some of the pieces in nonsense directions, knocking other pieces over and generally being belligerent and somewhat puerile. In other words, it’s time we put him to bed.


It just took you much longer that time. I don’t know why that is.

[Galileo]

You're so funny when you're drunk. You are trying to be funny here, right?

I'm dead serious. Terrorism is nothing to joke about. Shame on you.

[Galileo]

Saddam did not do 9/11.



So why are you defending a terrorist? Sean Hannity says that is un-American. Polls show that most Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9/11 and I ride with the majority.

We live in a democracy, and the majority rules!

[Galileo]

You adopted this same sort of behaviour during your last stint on this forum.




It just took you much longer that time. I don’t know why that is.

Your logo is still upside down. It's very difficult to take you seriousely. I think Todd Beamer stopped the terrorists from flying FL93 into WTC 7.

[Cobalt]

We live in a democracy, and the majority rules!

Incorrect.

[beachnut]

So why are you defending a terrorist? Sean Hannity says that is un-American. Polls show that most Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9/11 and I ride with the majority.

We live in a democracy, and the majority rules!
You have no logic there, and you are avoiding reality; do you understand physics as well as you do 9/11?

You were telling the truth you had no evidence, just fantasy.

You have proven in a few posts you posses a complete lack of knowledge on 9/11; what else can you prove?

[Par]

I think Todd Beamer stopped the terrorists from flying FL93 into WTC 7.


None of this is relevant to me, my friend.

[Galileo]

"Misleading descriptions
Mackey uses misleading language to imply that Griffin's book on the Commission Report was addressed by Popular Mechanics:

His previous works, including The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions [2], have helped motivate other authors disagreeing with his opinions to publish rebuttals, with the most well-known being Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To the Facts [3] from the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine.
p.1
In fact, neither the book Debunking 9/11 Myths, nor the 2005 Popular Mechanics article on which it is based, even mention Omissions and Distortions, and Popular Mechanics has addressed only a small fraction of the issues raised in this book.

Where NIST implied that most of Flight 175 hit the core Mackey takes the lie a step further by strongly implying that it was only the right engine -- rather than the everything except its left engine and wing -- that missed the core.

He then focuses his attention on the South Tower, for which models predict 10 destroyed core columns, whereas the North Tower only suffered an estimated six core columns destroyed. He states this is impossible, given that the South Tower was hit lower where core columns were thicker; the South Tower was hit off-center, and one engine of Flight 175 never hit the core at all; and that the wings of the aircraft could not have destroyed any core columns. He finishes by calling attention to the fact that NIST ran a range of cases, predicting 10 columns destroyed at most and only 3 at least, and states that NIST selected the worst case because, and only because, it was the only case that would lead to a collapse.
...
What about the right engine of Flight 175? It is true that this engine never contacted the core. However, the engine weighs approximately 9,000 pounds [32], or only about 4% of the weight of Flight 175 at time of impact. This means that no more than 4% of the total kinetic energy missed the core because of the engine's path.
p.16-18
Given that most of the fuselage popped out of the Tower's northeast corner, it would be surprising if more than 20 percent of the mass of Flight 175 was intercepted by the core. Mackey makes it sound like more than 90 percent was."

Here Hoffman destroys Mackey.

If 6 core columns were severed in WTC 1, then there's no way 10 core columns could be severed in WTC 2. The columns at the 95th floor were thinner than the columns at the 80th floor, and FL11 hit WTC 1 head on, while FL175 hit WTC 2 off center.

And if 10 core columns are not severed in WTC 2, then WTC 2 does not fall down according to the NIST computer models, especially since all the fire was out by 9:40.

Hoffman is smarter than Mackey, and Griffin is smart enough to follow Hoffman's analysis.

[beachnut]

Hoffman is smarter than Mackey, and Griffin is smart enough to follow Hoffman's analysis.
Wrong again. You have a perfect record of wrong. Griffin uses only hearsay, he has no clue on 9/11. Funny you have lack the knowledge to know that fact; why?

Flight 175 hit with a kinetic energy of 2093 pounds of TNT, and 11 hit with 1300 pounds of TNT. Looks like you left out physics just like Hoffman. Hoffman is self debunking, he presets enough information to debunk all his conclusions if you can use logic and rational thinking. Seems like all of 9/11 truth lack knowledge and is unable to come up with rational conclusions. You are becoming a top member.

[jaydeehess]

The plane that hit WTC 2 also had less distance to travel between the exterior wall and the core. The exterior of the towers were square but the cores were rectangular. In WTC 2 the plane hit on the short distance side. It was also going faster and hit at a shallower angle thus imparting less energy to the concrete floor.
So why are you defending a terrorist? Sean Hannity says that is un-American. Polls show that most Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9/11 and I ride with the majority.

We live in a democracy, and the majority rules!

How many supporters of the GWBush administration's policies and actions have you found in this thread Galileo?

[R.Mackey]

"Misleading descriptions
Mackey uses misleading language to imply that Griffin's book on the Commission Report was addressed by Popular Mechanics:

His previous works, including The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions [2], have helped motivate other authors disagreeing with his opinions to publish rebuttals, with the most well-known being Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To the Facts [3] from the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine.
p.1
In fact, neither the book Debunking 9/11 Myths, nor the 2005 Popular Mechanics article on which it is based, even mention Omissions and Distortions, and Popular Mechanics has addressed only a small fraction of the issues raised in this book.

Color added to distinguish my words from Hoffman's. Emphasis added.

Motivate does not mean the same thing as Address. Hoffman is a fool.


Where NIST implied that most of Flight 175 hit the core Mackey takes the lie a step further by strongly implying that it was only the right engine -- rather than the everything except its left engine and wing -- that missed the core.

...

Given that most of the fuselage popped out of the Tower's northeast corner, it would be surprising if more than 20 percent of the mass of Flight 175 was intercepted by the core. Mackey makes it sound like more than 90 percent was."

Yes, that's right, Jim Hoffman claims the fuselage "popped out of the Tower's northeast corner." Oh really?

I have no idea where he got this notion, or if he's just a pathological liar. Review Figure 7-13 of NCSTAR1-2B to see the trajectory of UA175 at impact, which had no possible way for the fuselage to miss the core.


Here Hoffman destroys Mackey.

If 6 core columns were severed in WTC 1, then there's no way 10 core columns could be severed in WTC 2. The columns at the 95th floor were thinner than the columns at the 80th floor, and FL11 hit WTC 1 head on, while FL175 hit WTC 2 off center.

And if 10 core columns are not severed in WTC 2, then WTC 2 does not fall down according to the NIST computer models, especially since all the fire was out by 9:40.

"There's no way," huh. How quickly we forget that UA175 was much faster than AA11, and had 60% more kinetic energy. Or that it hit flat, whereas AA11 was nosed down at several degrees and thus expended most of its momentum against the floor slabs. And the columns are not all that much thicker at Floor 80 than 95.

Hoffman is smarter than Mackey, and Griffin is smart enough to follow Hoffman's analysis.

Says the guy who thinks he is Galileo Galilei reincarnate. I'm sure Mr. Hoffman values your support.

[jaydeehess]

I don't have a video, I saw it on TV. .

,,,, but you don't remember the name of the program right.

Hey I think Christophera is back!

[SpitfireIX]

Hoffman is a fool.


And again, in other news, the pope is Catholic, a bear [rule10]s in the woods, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. :rolleyes:

Oh, and this just in: Richard Dawkins is an atheist. (Just for Undesired Walrus :D)

[jaydeehess]

you don't know what video I'm talking about, so how would you know that anything has been brought into question? From the people who have seen it, there hasn't been any question. We were speculating whether Osama or Saddam did it, or perhaps it was engineered for safety reasons. Everyone agrees the video I saw was a controlled demolition, the TV announcer even said it was. You must be talking about a different WTC building. Maybe WTC 8 or WTC 9, they weren't hit by planes either.

So tell us what network or channel you were watching. Who is "Everyone" that all agree it was a controlled demolition? You and a reporter?
I saw a press conference after a plane crash. The NTSB spokesperson explained what g forces and acellerations the plane experienced according to the FDR. I then heard reporters repeatedly ask this person to explain what g forces and accelleration are. Here we have a case in which the reporters knew they were being sent to a press conference in which technical details were to be discussed and yet many did not know the absolute most basic physics involved.
You watched a video clip that was either made live when WTC 7 collapsed and thus the reporter is a run of the mill reporter and not an expert in any way shape or form yet you believe his off-the-cuff characterization, OR, the video was made well after the fact and is a typical TM farce in which the 'reporter' is simply promoting an opinion to support his political agenda.

So, what evidence, other than his own opinion, did the reporter point to that would support the claim of demolition?

I know that I have seen several videos of the collapse of building 7 and none of them contain anything that would lead me to believe that controlled demolition simply must have been the cause of its demise.
On the other hand there are also videos and still photos that show the damage done to WTC 7 by the impact of parts of WTC 1 and of the fires that went unfought and the statements of the firemen on the scene who said they believed the building was very unstable early on in the day, that an elevator car in the core of the building had been ejected from its shaft that illustrates possible core damage. One corner of the building was gouged out and there was a tear in the south side of the building as well.

So we have definite evidence of impact damage and definite knowledge that lseveral large fires raged in the building as opposed to no evidence at all of a demolition other than "it fell down".

[pomeroo]

No, I said they blew up WTC 7. You are correct, two planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.

The terrorists went into WTC 7 and knocked all the fireproofing off the columns, dumped gasoline into the building to start a fire, then cut some of the core columns.

Then we saw it come down in a controlled demolition. It would take a large, dangerous terrorist network to pull this off. I'm glad they passed the Patriot Act. Since they passed the Patriot Act, we have not been attacked, so we know it's working.


Your uninformed speculations about WTC 7 are wrong. Although this topic has been worn to rags recently, I will repeat that no conspiracy liar has yet come close to fitting the collapse of this building, seven hours after the jihadist attacks, into any sort of coherent theory. Moreover, you are totally ignorant of demolition. It just ain't as simple as you pretend.

[pomeroo]

"Misleading descriptions
Mackey uses misleading language to imply that Griffin's book on the Commission Report was addressed by Popular Mechanics:

His previous works, including The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions [2], have helped motivate other authors disagreeing with his opinions to publish rebuttals, with the most well-known being Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To the Facts [3] from the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine.
p.1
In fact, neither the book Debunking 9/11 Myths, nor the 2005 Popular Mechanics article on which it is based, even mention Omissions and Distortions, and Popular Mechanics has addressed only a small fraction of the issues raised in this book.

Where NIST implied that most of Flight 175 hit the core Mackey takes the lie a step further by strongly implying that it was only the right engine -- rather than the everything except its left engine and wing -- that missed the core.

He then focuses his attention on the South Tower, for which models predict 10 destroyed core columns, whereas the North Tower only suffered an estimated six core columns destroyed. He states this is impossible, given that the South Tower was hit lower where core columns were thicker; the South Tower was hit off-center, and one engine of Flight 175 never hit the core at all; and that the wings of the aircraft could not have destroyed any core columns. He finishes by calling attention to the fact that NIST ran a range of cases, predicting 10 columns destroyed at most and only 3 at least, and states that NIST selected the worst case because, and only because, it was the only case that would lead to a collapse.
...
What about the right engine of Flight 175? It is true that this engine never contacted the core. However, the engine weighs approximately 9,000 pounds [32], or only about 4% of the weight of Flight 175 at time of impact. This means that no more than 4% of the total kinetic energy missed the core because of the engine's path.
p.16-18
Given that most of the fuselage popped out of the Tower's northeast corner, it would be surprising if more than 20 percent of the mass of Flight 175 was intercepted by the core. Mackey makes it sound like more than 90 percent was."

Here Hoffman destroys Mackey.

If 6 core columns were severed in WTC 1, then there's no way 10 core columns could be severed in WTC 2. The columns at the 95th floor were thinner than the columns at the 80th floor, and FL11 hit WTC 1 head on, while FL175 hit WTC 2 off center.

And if 10 core columns are not severed in WTC 2, then WTC 2 does not fall down according to the NIST computer models, especially since all the fire was out by 9:40.

Hoffman is smarter than Mackey, and Griffin is smart enough to follow Hoffman's analysis.


Why are you returning with your snake oil from last year? You were soundly drubbed and sent scurrying. You won't fare any better this time around.

[pomeroo]

You are wrong, Saddam did it, not Osama. We went to capture Saddam, not bin Laden.

Osama has not been charged and I never believe what terrorists say, anyway. They are liars!


Hmmm, I think I've got it:

Terrorist are liars;

You are a liar;

Therefore, you are a terrorist.


You see, I can be as logical as any twoofer.

[chillzero]

Keep it civil now it's been split, please.

[Dave_46]

I don't have a video, I saw it on TV. <snip>

We're in Chriophera territory here.

What's the betting that no reference will be forthcoming for the TV programme.

Dave

ETA Beaten to it by Jaydeehess.

[theauthor]

No, it wasn't "hit by an airplane." It was, however, struck by large pieces of falling debris from a collapsing 110-story skyscraper.

wtc5 and 6 were hit by much more debris than 7. And they suffered genuine fully involved infernos, especially 5.

[DC]

:eye-poppi

[CptColumbo]

Not my opinion, I was told it was a controlled demolition and it looked like one to me. What's the big deal, I think bin Laden did it. I know he tried to blow up the Towers back in 1993.Actually according to the government reports Bin Laden had no involvement in the 93 bombing, but would later have ties with those who did. Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj are suspected of being the planners, and they received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_WTC_Bombing

[CptColumbo]

wtc5 and 6 were hit by much more debris than 7. And they suffered genuine fully involved infernos, especially 5.
What is the basis for that measurement? Where did you hear about that the fires were worse, and what was used to estimate them?

If the buildings were built in exactly the same way you might have an argument.

[jaydeehess]

I never claimed to have any evidence. I just said I saw the terrorists blow up the WTC, like everyone else that day. They tried in 1993, then finished the job in 2001. I do not know what you are arguing about. The man who wrote the paper that began this thread already explained that the WTC was blown up, and he is an expert on the subject. I defer to experts.

The issue at hand is whether bin Laden, Saddam, or George Bush did it. The conspiracy theorists say Bush did it, but I say it was Saddam, while others here seem to lean towards bin Laden.

It says right at the beginning that this is a three-way debate, and we all agree that we saw the WTC on TV being knocked down.

Further to this post of GG's;

Yes the terrorists tried, and failed, to knock down the buildings using explosives in 1993.

They completed the knock down in 2001 utilizing a combination of two tried and true methods used by terror groups for 4 decades, those methods being aircraft hijackings and suicide missions. there have even been co-ordinated aircraft hijackings in the past.

Saddam or bin Laden? Well Saddam had confined his support of terrorism to financing Hamas IIRC. He had not taken part in any operations outside the middle east whereas alQada, and by extension then, bin Laden had done so in Africa against US targets and had on many occassions called for armed action against western forces until the west was out of the 'Holy Land'.

There is no record whatsoever of any connection between Geo.W. Bush and terrorist actions aimed at US forces or citizens.

Thus using the available information one must conclude that the terror organization, al Qada, who's founder is Osama bin Laden, carried out the attacks of Sept. 11/01