9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

I reckon for a building the size of WTC 1 or 2 appx' 300ft, what does anyone else think? higher? lower?

Where are you measuring from? Ground level or the very bottom of the building?

Anyway, there are probably too many factors to be accurate.

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:I reckon for a building the size of WTC 1 or 2 appx' 300ft, what does anyone else think? higher? lower?

300' is over 20% of the original height of the buildings. I'd say your estimate is much too high.

(cue Sheriton with some naff calculations which "prove" that the lack of a 300' rubble pile proves mini-nukes or somesuch)

According to a 9/11 DVD I recently purchased the 47 storey WTC building 7 rubble pile was higher than either WTC1 or 2's 'rubble piles', absolutely dwarfing both of them! 7's was appx' 4 storeys high at its pyramidal peak, 10% of its original height? (accurate figures are difficult due to Mayor Guiliani adding trucked in soil to the piles for reasons better known to himself).

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:According to a 9/11 DVD I recently purchased the 47 storey WTC building 7 rubble pile was higher than either WTC1 or 2's 'rubble piles', absolutely dwarfing both of them! 7's was appx' 4 storeys high at its pyramidal peak, 10% of its original height? (accurate figures are difficult due to Mayor Guiliani adding trucked in soil to the piles for reasons better known to himself).

And your point is?

Do you dispute this data? does the truth hurt? wibble's wobblong but he won't fall down!

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:According to a 9/11 DVD I recently purchased the 47 storey WTC building 7 rubble pile was higher than either WTC1 or 2's 'rubble piles', absolutely dwarfing both of them! 7's was appx' 4 storeys high at its pyramidal peak, 10% of its original height? (accurate figures are difficult due to Mayor Guiliani adding trucked in soil to the piles for reasons better known to himself).

That - in your own words - would be the "pyramidal peak", not the mean height. Even then only 10% of the original height of WTC7. Assuming a very nice pyramid, this would come in at 3.3% of original height.

This is stlll much less than the 300' (over 20% of original height) you proposed for WTC1 + 2. And they had very substantial basements. Unless you reckon your estimates for the WTC debris was based on pyramidal debris pile, when we would have to recalculate.

So ... to echo Wibble's post.. "what is your point" ??

Dear Sheriton ... please try to be clear when you post.

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:Do you dispute this data? does the truth hurt? wibble's wobblong but he won't fall down!

I am not disputing anything at this point as I do not know what point you are trying to make. If you are not making a point I can dispute nothing.

Wibble wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:Do you dispute this data? does the truth hurt? wibble's wobblong but he won't fall down!

I am not disputing anything at this point as I do not know what point you are trying to make. If you are not making a point I can dispute nothing.

Sheriton Hotel is making an obvious point obliquely. Because you don't know how to rebut it, you pretend that he is not making one so that you don't have to admit you cannot explain the anomaly to which he referred. Let me make his point clear so that even you can understand: WTC7's pile of rubble was much higher than either that of WTC1 or WTC2, despite being only 70 floors high, compared with the 110 floors of these buildings. Now even a moron will notice something anomalous in this, although of course not those who don't want to see problems, however glaring they are. If gravity alone had driven their collapse and destruction, the piles of rubble for the larger towers would have been taller because they contained far more material - geddit? The fact that they were not supports the proposition (obvious to anyone except those who are in denial about 9/11) that much of the material of the South and North Towers never fell to the ground as large chunks of concrete because it was pulverised by high explosives into fine dust, much of which was scattered and fell over a wide area, leaving a smaller debris pile, unlike WTC7, whose controlled demolition was conventional, leaving large pieces of debris in the crushed floors and a higher debris pile.

Now wobbling Wibble, duck and weave all you like, but don't deceive yourself that you are duping others that you are sincere. Some of us know better. We find it hard to believe that someone could be so obtuse

Micpsi wrote:

Wibble wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:Do you dispute this data? does the truth hurt? wibble's wobblong but he won't fall down!

I am not disputing anything at this point as I do not know what point you are trying to make. If you are not making a point I can dispute nothing.

Sheriton Hotel is making an obvious point obliquely. Because you don't know how to rebut it, you pretend that he is not making one so that you don't have to admit you cannot explain the anomaly to which he referred....

Dear Mic

Sheriton hasn't even told us what value he's using for the WTC1+2 rubble piles.

He's been asked whether he's working (when he gets round to it) from ground level or including the extensive basements to WTC1+2. No answer. The basements would of course make a big difference.

It's been pointed out that his height for the WTC7 pile is the peak of the "pyramid" (in his words) and whether he's comparing (when he gets round to mentioning a figure) the WTC1+2 "pyramids" with that of WTC7.

So far zip response from Sheriton. So I can see no reason to criticise Wibble who - like me - is repeatedly asking him what his point is. So far Sheri hasn't actually made one apart from the unsupported assertion that WTC7 pile "dwarfed" the WTC1+2 piles. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but Sheriton has provided no figures.

Perhaps you can clear this up?

p.s. WTC7 wasn't 70 floors high.

Sheraton Hotel did not need to provide figures. It takes only five minutes studying images of the WTC complex after 9/11 with Google to verify what he was stating. In fact, it is common knowledge amongst 9/11 researchers. The point implied in what he said is obvious. But, as usual, the skeptics use their bluster and splitting hairs to hide their inability to rebut an argument that undermines their belief in the official story of 9/11.

Yes, WTC 7 was 47 stories high, not 70. I am an author/researcher and had been writing some material for my new book in which the number 70 plays a prominant role. Somehow, it made me forget what I really did know when I posted the comment. The fact that it was 47, not 70, floors tall, yet had a higher debris pile, of course strengthens my original point even more.

Micpsi wrote:Sheraton Hotel did not need to provide figures. It takes only five minutes studying images of the WTC complex after 9/11 with Google to verify what he was stating. In fact, it is common knowledge amongst 9/11 researchers. The point implied in what he said is obvious. But, as usual, the skeptics use their bluster and splitting hairs to hide their inability to rebut an argument that undermines their belief in the official story of 9/11.

So asking what the relative claimed heights were, and whether the WTC1+2 basements are included in the calculations counts as "splitting hairs"? Seems to me like they're absolutely fundamental to the issue being debated.

Can you tell us the answers to those questions? The perhaps we can get somewhere in this debate.

I am still waiting for the Truther to provide all the data rather than picking and choosing the bits they like.

And

Are you implying that the WTC was CD and WTC7 was not?

Wibble wrote:I am still waiting for the Truther to provide all the data rather than picking and choosing the bits they like.

And

Are you implying that the WTC was CD and WTC7 was not?

Or vice-versa? Or maybe it's supposed - in some obscure way - to prove both were CD'd ?

It boils down to the same question - "what is your point" ?

A question so far unanswered.

Still waiting

Wibble wrote:Still waiting

Me too. Perhaps they just dematerialised? Was a "cloaking device" involved?

He is active on other threads but seems to be avoiding this. How strange for a Truther to avoid backing up their statements and claims.

Wibble wrote:He is active on other threads but seems to be avoiding this. How strange for a Truther to avoid backing up their statements and claims.

Not avoiding. Simply not wasting my precious time proving my statements to those who don't want to be convinced.

You are simply assuming we do not want to be convinced when it is in fact your complete lack of evidence that is the problem here.

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:According to a 9/11 DVD I recently purchased

- sucker!