• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Q's about AE911T

Horatius, do you agree that gravity pulls things downward in the most efficient manner it can? Then how would these "bits" be hitting other buildings both to the west and north, and in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?
 
ergo said:
Horatius, do you agree that gravity pulls things downward in the most efficient manner it can? Then how would these "bits" be hitting other buildings both to the west and north and in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?
Click to expand...


oh what happened to the truther mantra "path of least resistance" ?
 
Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?
 
ergo said:
Horatius, do you agree that gravity pulls things downward in the most efficient manner it can? Then how would these "bits" be hitting other buildings both to the west and north, and in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?
Click to expand...



Sure, so long as you admit that "the most efficient manner it can" is a relative term. Things collide and are deflected, you know. Any collision that imparts an impulse in any direction other than downwards to any part of the structure will result in a parabolic path for the part so affected. Such lateral impulses would be expected to be randomly distributed, leading to the complicated collapse pattern, that is, hitting buildings in several directions, that was actually observed.

That you apparently need this to be explained to you is really quite disheartening.
 
You forgot to answer the second part of the question: in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?



In other words: Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?
 
ergo said:
Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?
Click to expand...



Because we're not arguing that. That's your strawman version of our argument again.


As I sad before, it was the Truthers who insisted that the collapse patterns somehow prove something. That you're now arguing that you expect a controlled demolition to result in the same pattern of debris as any other collapse casts aside that entire line of reasoning, a line of reasoning that, as others have pointed out, is a key plank in the A&E9/11 platform.

Here's a deal: you convince them to remove this claim from their website, and we'll all shut up about it, okay?
 
ergo said:
You forgot to answer the second part of the question: in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?



In other words: Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?
Click to expand...



See above for the "in other words part". As for "straight down", "straight down" is an absolute term, not a relative one. Any deviation from straight down means it isn't. So at this point we're arguing about how close to "straight down" any particular collapse from any particular cause should be expected to be.

Again, the Truthers are the ones who are insisting that the collapses we saw were too close to "straight down" to be any thing other than a CD, but now you've clearly backed away from that claim, due to obvious fact that debris hit several other buildings. You're paradoxically trying to assert that the collapse didn't look like a CD because THEY weren't stupid enough to make it perfect, but that it's still close enough to a CD that it's still suspicious. I'd ask you to be honest and admit that's what you're doing, but I've come to expect a complete lack of honest debate from any of you truthers.
 
Horatius said:
Because we're not arguing that. That's your strawman version of our argument again.

As I sad before, it was the Truthers who insisted that the collapse patterns somehow prove something. That you're now arguing that you expect a controlled demolition to result in the same pattern of debris as any other collapse casts aside that entire line of reasoning, a line of reasoning that, as others have pointed out, is a key plank in the A&E9/11 platform.
Click to expand...


AETruth doesn't talk about the debris pattern for WTC7, that I know of. The only people I see making a fuss about this are the footprint theorists on JREF.

You haven't answered my question. If you're accepting that WTC7 did eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, how does this prove it didn't fall straight down?
 
Horatius said:
Again, the Truthers are the ones who are insisting that the collapses we saw were too close to "straight down" to be any thing other than a CD, but now you've clearly backed away from that claim, due to obvious fact that debris hit several other buildings.
Click to expand...

Um, no, I haven't backed away from that claim, as my question above clearly indicates.
 
ergo said:
AETruth doesn't talk about the debris pattern for WTC7, that I know of. The only people I see making a fuss about this are the footprint theorists on JREF.
Click to expand...



"That you know of". See, that right there is the dishonesty I was mentioning. Here's a link to a post that discusses exactly what A&E9/11 claims about WTC7:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6706194#post6706194


Oh, and look who the very next poster is. If you don't know what they say about it, it's only because you've chosen to ignore everybody who has ever tried to point it out to you.

Now, once again, here's a direct quote from A&E9/11's front page, discussing WTC7:

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
Click to expand...


Notice, "its own" footprint. No mention of anything going anywhere else, and certainly not all over several other buildings.

So, convince them to remove this assertion, and we'll shut up about it. Deal?
 
(Note to lurkers: This is what happens when you actually try to follow bee dunker logic to some kind of rational conclusion.)
 
Horatius, did building 7 itself crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
 
ergo said:
(Note to lurkers: This is what happens when you actually try to follow bee dunker logic to some kind of rational conclusion.)
Click to expand...

What happens is (for all those keeping score at home), twoofers get their a** handed to them...every time!
 
Dogtown, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
 
ergo said:
AETruth doesn't talk about the debris pattern for WTC7, that I know of. The only people I see making a fuss about this are the footprint theorists on JREF.

You haven't answered my question. If you're accepting that WTC7 did eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, how does this prove it didn't fall straight down?
Click to expand...

You're wrong about the collapse. The commonly-held narrative of the collapse stands until people like you get somebody who can do something about it to not think you're a bunch of idiots.

Good luck with that.
 
Twinstead, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
 
DGM said:
Do bee dunkers.....do bee do...do bee...do?
Click to expand...

6a00e553deebaf883401310fd7ba33970c-550wi
 
From articles on A&E's site:

"Building seven is the smoking gun," Steele said. "That building fell completely into its own footprint.
Click to expand...

A 47-story high-rise suddenly collapses straight down into its own footprint -- highly anomalous
Click to expand...

You don’t tell him about WTC 7 -- you show him the photos of it descending into its own footprint.
Click to expand...

Most of the rubble from the building ended up in this neat pile — centered within the original footprint.
Click to expand...

WTC 7 collapsed vertically, symmetrically, and neatly into its own footprint.
Click to expand...


I could go on, but it should be clear to anyone approaching this debate in a honest manner that the "footprint" argument is a central aspect of their position. They mention it every time the mention building 7, and never once mention the debris that hit the other buildings. It's an entirely dishonest manner of presenting the evidence, and it's one they do all the time.
 
ergo said:
Horatius, did building 7 itself crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
Click to expand...



Yes. That you present these as two mutually exclusive positions speaks volumes. If someone fell and hit his head on a table, would you object to someone saying, "He fell on the table"?
 
Horatius said:
I could go on, but it should be clear to anyone approaching this debate in a honest manner that the "footprint" argument is a central aspect of their position. They mention it every time the mention building 7, and never once mention the debris that hit the other buildings. It's an entirely dishonest manner of presenting the evidence, and it's one they do all the time.
Click to expand...

Sorry you went to that trouble, Horatius, because no one is contesting this.

The answer I'm trying to get at is how does WTC7 debris hitting other buildings prove that the building did not fall straight down?
 
Horatius said:
Yes. That you present these as two mutually exclusive positions speaks volumes. If someone fell and hit his head on a table, would you object to someone saying, "He fell on the table"?
Click to expand...

I might if I was a doctor, or a crime investigator. But if someone were then to explain that he fell and hit his head on the table, it would be much more clear.

So which is it? Did the building itself crash into Fiterman Hall and Verizon building, or did it eject chunks of itself as it descended?
 
ergo said:
Twinstead, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
Click to expand...

This video seems to show it falling downward then toward the SW.



This angle seems to confirm that:

Notice that the building also seems to twist in a counter-clockwise motion as well.

Here's video and shots of the rubble pile:


Doesn't look like it fell "straight down into it's footprint" to me.
 
ergo said:
Twinstead, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
Click to expand...

You don't exactly have the backing of the world's engineering and scientific communities or even the preponderance of evidence to impress me one single bit with your delightful rhetoric and sassy debate style. You think you've backed the bee dunkers into a corner and are now going for the kill, so instead of engaging in constructive debate, you're just asking a stupid question over and over and over again. LOL

Now, obviously pieces of it flew into the other buildings. So many, in fact, that it could be arguably defined as the building 7 crashing into the other buildings. Or not. So, my answer?

It did both. Or neither. Or one and not the other. Whatever. What it certainly DIDN'T do is fall straight down into its own footprint.
 
Last edited:
Sabretooth had a good video. (Had to take you off Ignore to quote it):

Sabretooth said:
This angle seems to confirm that:

Notice that the building also seems to twist in a counter-clockwise motion as well.
Click to expand...

Don't notice the twisting, but this is a good video. Do you see the building falling straight down for half of its descent? And then it leans over to the south west (if your directions are correct) in the last half.
 
We have already acknowledged the damage to those buildings. You'll notice that the debris is not found between Irving Trust and Fiterman Hall, so the building did not fall onto Fiterman Hall, just some debris.

But tell us, Sabretooth, what building site is the WTC7 rubble sitting on?
 
ergo said:
We have already acknowledged the damage to those buildings. You'll notice that the debris is not found between Irving Trust and Fiterman Hall, so the building did not fall onto Fiterman Hall, just some debris.
Click to expand...
You'd have to give an idea as to when the photo was taken. Looking at the image, it seems that there are a large number of construction vehicles around the area and a crane stationed to the NW of the WTC7 debris field...which suggests cleanup is (was) already underway. This doesn't confirm anything as far as there being "no debris" between Fiterman and Irving Trust.

ergo said:
But tell us, Sabretooth, what building site is the WTC7 rubble sitting on?
Click to expand...
You want me to say "footprint", but that really is not the case. Considering that the debris field extends out the width of the roads that created the perimeter around WTC7, I'd say the four surrounding buildings contained the wreckage.
 
ergo said:
We have already acknowledged the damage to those buildings. You'll notice that the debris is not found between Irving Trust and Fiterman Hall, so the building did not fall onto Fiterman Hall, just some debris.
Click to expand...

Debris from 7WTC, is 7WTC!

Sheeeeeesh!
 
ergo said:
Sorry you went to that trouble, Horatius, because no one is contesting this.

The answer I'm trying to get at is how does WTC7 debris hitting other buildings prove that the building did not fall straight down?
Click to expand...


Well by any known definition of "Straight down", if indeed it all fell "straight down" then no parts could have landed on another building. Clearly some parts were ejected in the collapse or parts peeled out sideways and landed on the street and on lower buildings (just as they did in the WTC tower collapses).

What you imagine this proves other than the comment "into its own footprint" is wrong, I cannot tell.:boggled:
 
ergo said:
We have already acknowledged the damage to those buildings. You'll notice that the debris is not found between Irving Trust and Fiterman Hall, so the building did not fall onto Fiterman Hall, just some debris.
Click to expand...

just some debris :) What do you call all the other debris of the building if it is just debris???????

But tell us, Sabretooth, what building site is the WTC7 rubble sitting on?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Some of it on the WTC7 site, some of it is in the streets, some of it landed on buildings nearby and some blew away with the wind.

None of these places other that the WTC7 site could honestly be described as the "footprint" of the building.
 
Sabretooth said:
Looking at the image, it seems that there are a large number of construction vehicles around the area and a crane stationed to the NW of the WTC7 debris field...which suggests cleanup is (was) already underway. This doesn't confirm anything as far as there being "no debris" between Fiterman and Irving Trust.
Click to expand...

I don't see a crane. I see water from a fire hose. It doesn't look to me like any significant cleanup has begun, and it's not terribly relevant anyway.

You want me to say "footprint", but that really is not the case. Considering that the debris field extends out the width of the roads that created the perimeter around WTC7, I'd say the four surrounding buildings contained the wreckage.
Click to expand...

I don't see four surrounding buildings "containing the wreckage". I think you're trying hard to see things that aren't there.
 
ergo said:
The problem is you haven't shown in any way that the building did not fall into its footprint.
Click to expand...

Does the footprint of a building include the roofs of adjacent buildings, yes or no, ergo?

ergo said:
You make some childish argument that because the rubble spread into the street is "proof" that it didn't fall straight down.
Click to expand...

Liar. I did not make such an argument.

ergo said:
If an entire building comes down, the rubble is going to spread into the street, whether it's a natural collapse or a CD.
Click to expand...

Strawman. No one here argues the "spreading into the street". We are talking about slamming onto the roof across the street.

ergo said:
It obviously did so here also because large sections of it had not be broken. This is not proof that no pre-planned demolition took place.
Click to expand...

Strawman. No one claims that.

ergo said:
If you want to argue that it's proof that the demolition of WTC7 was not openly contracted out and therefore a professional demolition team was not on hand that day to bring it down in a safe and tidy manner, go right ahead. You would not counter any objection to that.
Click to expand...

No, ergo, I don't want to argue that. I want to argue that your and AE911T's claim that "WTC7 fell into its footprint" is FALSE. I also want to argue that even if it DID so, it wouldn't be suspicious.

ergo said:
To further argue that because parts of the building hit nearby buildings also proves nothing as to whether it was a natural, fire-induced collapse or a CD.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I said the same earlier.

ergo said:
In fact, it points more to CD than fire.
Click to expand...

Wait a second - a collapsing building hitting nbeighbours is now a sign of CD? AE911T wants to argue the opposite, don't they?

ergo said:
You are not trying to find common ground with me when you are ignoring the flaws in your own argumentation and then insisting repeatedly that I answer your same questions over and over.
Click to expand...

But you don't answer it at all. Instead, you imply a lie.
Or well, you did already answer a):
- Does the roof of an adjacent buildiung belong to the footprint? your answer was: no
- So far you have not told us if you agree that WTC7 fell on the roof of Fiterman Hall. ergo? Did it? Yes? No?
And after you answered that, you ought to be able to draw a conclusion:
- Did WTC7 fall into its foorprint? Yes? No?
You haven't answered the second and third, so you have not answered them over and over.

ergo said:
For the last time, Oystein, the fact that parts of WTC 7 hit other buildings does not change the argument that it fell straight down, into its own footprint,
Click to expand...

FALSE

ergo said:
and that the only buildings that have ever collapsed in that manner have done so from CD.
Click to expand...

FALSE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom