IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th July 2011, 02:29 PM   #41
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
I am in Iraq, so videos take too long to load. Going off of the description I have already given you, that should be enough for you to know what I think of the demolitions in your video. If the building is falling "into" itself, then I would say it is falling into it's own footprint. If the building collapses from the top down "onto" the remaining structure, then I would say it is collapsing "onto" it's footprint. I feel I have been patient and courteous with you and given you an honest answer. I usually have zero tolerance for twoofies, but for some reason I was in a good mood tonight. I have given you an explanation, and you have not refuted it. In fact, you said that it was a good post. So what else do you want to know?
Yes, you have been.

So, the towers fell onto their footprints. Good. Did WTC 7 fall into or onto its footprint? And do you think that AETruth's use of the word "into" for any of these buildings is fundamentally misleading?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 02:31 PM   #42
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm not going to repeat arguments I've gone over ad nauseum.
Well then why in the heck did you start this thread where the OP is clearly intended to do just that?

Truthers have constantly interchanged the words into and onto wrt to the footprints and debris as they see fit based upon who they are talking to. They use into because that implies precision (of which there was none on 9/11) while onto is, well, pretty sloppy (of which there was abundance of on 9/11).

One usage supposedly supports their claims of demolition (which, even if their idiotic and unworkable demolitions theory were true, doesn't do that, but their audience is too dumb to realize it) while the other implies no such thing (which is also not evidence for or against demolitions but their audience is too dumb to know it).

In other words truthers use into instead of onto because it "Sounds" more sinister that way.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 02:33 PM   #43
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
All I'm asking here Dave is, when we are talking about the manner of a building's descent, what is the difference? Simple question. Should be an easy answer for you.
I answered. You're just trying to divert people's attention away from the facts that (A) you have no evidence for the tower collapses (including WTC 7) being an inside job, and (B) all those vaunted architects and engineers over at AE911 Truthiness are making conflicting statements, which makes them look like the amateurs and Monday-morning quarterbacks they all are. Including Gage himself, I might add.

So, my simple question to you: what are you doing to clear up all the confusion and discrepancies among the engineers of AE911Truthiness?

They are very confused, and clearly need your master guidance!

Now get over there and do the right thing.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 02:33 PM   #44
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, you have been.

So, the towers fell onto their footprints. Good. Did WTC 7 fall into or onto its footprint? And do you think that AETruth's use of the word "into" for any of these buildings is fundamentally misleading?
Sorry to but in here, Quad, but ergo is attempting to deceive you. What is fundamentally misleading is when AETruth says "WTC 7 fell into its footprint which can only happen in a controlled demolition". The word "into" taken by itself could be just a fudge up. It's the context that counts. We have already explained this to ergo multiple times.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 02:46 PM   #45
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,732
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Please explain to us how a building falling onto its footprint falls in a fundamentally different way than a building falling into its footprint. Thanks.
The thread title asks for this to be explained to "ergo". Who is this "us"? Are you assuming someone else cares or are you sharing your account?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 02:47 PM   #46
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, you have been.

So, the towers fell onto their footprints. Good. Did WTC 7 fall into or onto its footprint? And do you think that AETruth's use of the word "into" for any of these buildings is fundamentally misleading?

The collapse of WTC7 is a bit tricky, as it did not fall in a fashion similar to a controlled demolition or the collapses of the WTC. It fell from an internal failure of a key support column damaged by fires started by the collapse of the WTC. The building fell more or less straight down, which is neither "into" or "onto". However, given the definitions I have already presented, I would say that WTC7 fell "onto" it's own footprint, as opposed to "into" it's own footprint. The reason for this is that there were no explosive charges inside of the building to make the exterior walls of the structure fall inward "into" itself. Instead, a key support column caused a progressive collapse. While it does appear that it falls into itself at first, this is just the support column failing. Once the progressive collapse is initiated, the building falls straight down. So I will still go with "onto".

And I have no idea AETruth's use of the word is misleading. Given their track record, I would say that yes they probably use it in a deceitful manner.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 02:47 PM   #47
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, you have been.

So, the towers fell onto their footprints. Good. Did WTC 7 fall into or onto its footprint? And do you think that AETruth's use of the word "into" for any of these buildings is fundamentally misleading?
Is this all you have?

Seriously?

Just 37,472 more steps to prove the inside jobby job, sport.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 02:49 PM   #48
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
While it may not be a mistake to say either that the debris fell into or onto the building's 'footprint', both are an exaggeration beyond the fundemental definition of a building's 'footprint'.

However, the connotation of using 'into' implies that it indeed did fall at least largely within its own basement whereas 'onto' does not connote such a thing.

The entire 'it fell within its footprint' meme is a strawman arguement from both sides of the debate. Obviously none of the structures fell strictly within their own footprint and the 911 conspiracy believers are actually trying to simply state that the debris did not scatter as much as they believe it should have. This is an example only of personal incredulity.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 02:49 PM   #49
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Sorry to but in here, Quad, but ergo is attempting to deceive you. What is fundamentally misleading is when AETruth says "WTC 7 fell into its footprint which can only happen in a controlled demolition". The word "into" taken by itself could be just a fudge up. It's the context that counts. We have already explained this to ergo multiple times.

Yes I understand. I know ergos posting history here. I knew this when I started responding to him. Like I said earlier, I usually have absolutely no tolerance for twoofies these days. Tonight though, I just happened to be bored and decided to take the bait. Hope he is enjoying himself.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 03:37 PM   #50
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
So uke and Quad don't want to answer this question. I'll put it to other bedunkers:
Dude.
They DID answer it. Get over it.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 03:43 PM   #51
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I had a client who actually kept an email going for like 15 of them, when my original question was simply "do you want a comma there or not"?

I kid you not. 15 emails to various levels of administration. For a comma.

This is the exact same thing.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 03:55 PM   #52
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
I would have preferred a "Here's my incontrovertible evidence that 9-11 was a controlled demolition" thread (or whatever the hell you believe, you won't say), but I guess "onto/into" is okay...
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 15th July 2011 at 03:57 PM.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:05 PM   #53
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I had a client who actually kept an email going for like 15 of them, when my original question was simply "do you want a comma there or not"?

I kid you not. 15 emails to various levels of administration. For a comma.
I know exactly how you feel, Noah.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:07 PM   #54
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I know exactly how you feel, Noah.
You could just stop at anytime and end the humiliation, but for some strange reason you don't.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:10 PM   #55
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So uke and Quad don't want to answer this question. I'll put it to other bedunkers:

Are the imploded buildings in this video falling into or onto their footprints? And what is the difference? Thanks.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Building can't walk and therefore don't leave footprints.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:19 PM   #56
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,187
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I used to have just one little troll, a personal troll here, who would follow me from thread to thread whispering, "into vs. onto, ergo...get it yet??" Now it seems there are a few who are just dying to enlighten me on the subject.

The "into" vs. "onto" "controversy" began in this thread: "9/11 Bee dunkers are unclear...", when I pointed out to bedunkers that their hero in paranormal building physics, Zdenek Bazant, stated in this paper, that the towers fell "essentially on their footprint". This, after bedunkers had spent about 10 pages of that thread, and dozens of pages in another thread, vehemently insisting that the towers fell outside their footprints, i.e., not straight down. Alienentity was one of these, posting this photo in some bizarre attempt to show that the building fell somewhere other than over its own site.

Read the thread to see how they scramble to recover after this. This was the birth of the "into vs. onto" strawman. Its only purpose was to distract from how stupid they looked.

As I've explained several times already, in the context of building collapse, "into" makes little difference from "onto". Both mean straight down. Even in planned controlled demolitions, buildings do not fall neatly into their basements. Debris always falls outside the footprint. The term "into its footprint" is used to describe the descent of the building, not its debris pile. This has been explained several times to JREF bedunkers, but they pretend not to understand.

So I'm giving them an opportunity to voice their objections here, instead of having to stalk me from thread to thread. I suspect this will simply continue the inane argument that began in the referring threads, but let's hear it from the bee people themselves, shall we?


Please explain to us how a building falling onto its footprint falls in a fundamentally different way than a building falling into its footprint. Thanks.
Have you tried a dictionary ergo? Ya know, big books that explain what words mean?
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:27 PM   #57
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
If a question of friggin' semantics is deserving of its own thread now, I think it's safe to say that the 9/11 subforum has pretty much run out of topics.

Just say what you mean and call it whatever the heck you want to call it. Who cares?
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif

"The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:40 PM   #58
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by 1337m4n View Post
If a question of friggin' semantics is deserving of its own thread now, I think it's safe to say that the 9/11 subforum has pretty much run out of topics.

Just say what you mean and call it whatever the heck you want to call it. Who cares?
Well, I agree in this case, where bedunkers who are clueless about what the argument is follow me around from thread to thread shouting, irrelevantly, "into vs. onto!" "into vs. onto! Haw! Haw!"

But actually being able to "say what you mean" seems to be very difficult for many bedunkers, as we can see by uke2se's convoluted answers to my very simple questions in this thread.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:44 PM   #59
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Would you rather be disciplined with a rod into or onto your butt?
__________________
"LMAO! pure intelligets, have you read my posts?"--superlogicalthinker
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:46 PM   #60
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The entire 'it fell within its footprint' meme is a strawman arguement from both sides of the debate. Obviously none of the structures fell strictly within their own footprint and the 911 conspiracy believers are actually trying to simply state that the debris did not scatter as much as they believe it should have. This is an example only of personal incredulity.
Not exactly, but I appreciate this reply because it brings up some misconceptions about what the argument is. Misconceptions that Dave Thomas seems to labour under.

To bring a building down into its footprint is another way of saying to implode it or bring it down in a controlled manner. The expression describes the building falling as a whole, rapidly, straight down, into a debris pile at and/or below ground level. This happened in both the cases of the towers and WTC 7, although in different manners. However, the debris from the Towers did not simply fall straight down, as the pictures show us. It was pushed up and out in large volumes as well. This is not only uncharacteristic of typical controlled demolition, but of natural collapses as well. Still, the buildings demolished in an (unprecedented) top downward fashion, so you can say that it descended straight down.

The argument about debris is that a gravitational collapse from localized, asymmetrical damage would not produce an even collapse, with all four faces of both buildings being destroyed evenly and at the same time. Instead, if a collapse were to occur, it would occur where the damage began, and proceed asymmetrically, and also not complete itself, because the gravitational energy meets with resistance of the intact building structure.The Delft building that chris mohr likes to cite is an excellent example of asymmetrical collapse from localized damage. A portion fell off and it did not bring the rest of the building down.

Nevertheless, we have bedunkers here arguing that the WTC buildings did not descend symmetrically, and bedunkers like Dave Thomas saying that the debris scatter was also not symmetrical (while showing a diagram of a highly symmetrical debris field.) We also have bedunkers here trying to argue that none of the buildings fell straight down.

And still no one except Quad has been willing to explain the difference between a building collapsing into vs. onto its footprint. Yet bedunkers who have no clue what this argument is about harass me from thread to thread about this strawman, non-existent distinction.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:50 PM   #61
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Blah, blah blah... Like I said, truthers like to use into because it sounds more sinister than what it was, which was sinister enough if you ask me.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 04:58 PM   #62
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Now it seems there are a few who are just dying to enlighten me on the subject.
We've been there, done that. Not sure why you needed to start another thread Ergo, the last one was embarrassing enough.
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 05:06 PM   #63
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I agree it was very embarassing for most of you. I already explained that.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 05:22 PM   #64
BaaBaa
Semi-literate hench-person
 
BaaBaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,458
Is this another semantic piece of wankerei , a la the 'What we mean when we say 'MIHOP' "thread?
__________________
"Damn, i think you are illeterate"
BaaBaa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 05:27 PM   #65
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,321
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I agree it was very embarassing for most of you. I already explained that.
Um no.

We weren't the ones dodging questions like a car thief on crack.


Just a quick summary of questions you never answered in the first 10 pages alone:

Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Ergo,

Did 7WTC fall into it's footprint? (You can use any definition you want)

Does a demplition footprint usually include other buildings not scheduled for demolition?
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
So, does a CD Footprint usually include other buildings ergo?
Originally Posted by adkinsjr View Post
You appear to be omitting the question. Just answer it, yes or no?



You tell us...you know the "truth" remember?
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
No.

Does "footprint" of any definition you choose, usually include other buildings?
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
They do have a point. Your dodging of a perfectly simple yes-or-no question is a desperate attempt to ensure that no one other than you notices the glaring problem with your position.

Recall that you said:




The reason they ask "Does "footprint" of any definition you choose, usually include other buildings?" is because, as anyone who has studied 9/11 in any depth should know, debris from WTC7 damaged several buildings around it. If, as you say, it fell into "its own footprint", then you must believe that somewhere, someone in some construction or demolition trade uses the word "footprint" in some context that supports that position.

That, or you know you're just making up crap, and are hoping not to get called out on it.

Well, so much for that last hope.

But do please continue dodging this quite simple and obvious point, as such behaviours are the single greatest evidence we have that people like you are approaching this entire discussion in an utterly dishonest and disingenuous manner.
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
AHEM!! Ergo!?!?!?! Where'd you go?

A simple two-three keystroke answer is all I am asking for.

I'll wait.....
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
PS. Ergo,

Does any definition of footprint include other buildings?

Yes

No


Copy and past one of them.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Bumped for ergo. Another point he raised and he ran away from after he was shown to be wrong.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Bumped for ergo: Another good challenge he dodged entirely.






To sum up:
1. We all know that WTC7 damaged the roof of Fiterman Hall and crashed into the side of at least one other building
2. ergo calls this behaviour "drop like a controlled demolition, an implosion, into its own footprint"
3. So ergo needs to show that controlled demolitions result in footprints that include the roofs and faces of neighbouring parlance.
4. Alternatively, ergo could admit that he made up crap
5. There is no #5 - no other alterrnative.

ergo, go!
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
BTW, ergo,

Does "footprint" of any of your definitions, include other buildings?

Yes

No
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Hey Ergo,

Stop driving that Dodge like it's invisible and answer Dave et al's questions.

Do footprints usually include other buildings?

Yes

No
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Still dodging.

Please try closure on the issues that YOU raised:
- Do you concede that that it is standard practice at the JEM to have discussions of papers, and replies ("closure") to the discussion by the original author, and that this does not compromise the integrity of a major science journal?
- What is your definition of "footprint", and does it include neighbouring buildings, in common demolition industry parlance?
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Perhaps you could do those of us less cunning than yourself the favour of highlighting which portion of that post answers the question asked?
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 05:35 PM   #66
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
ProBono, do you know why they were asking that question?

To bring a building down into its footprint is another way of saying to implode it or bring it down in a controlled manner. The expression describes the building falling as a whole, rapidly, straight down, into a debris pile at and/or below ground level. This happened in both the cases of the towers and WTC 7, although in different manners.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 05:39 PM   #67
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Not exactly, but I appreciate this reply because it brings up some misconceptions about what the argument is. Misconceptions that Dave Thomas seems to labour under.

...

Nevertheless, we have bedunkers here arguing that the WTC buildings did not descend symmetrically, and bedunkers like Dave Thomas saying that the debris scatter was also not symmetrical (while showing a diagram of a highly symmetrical debris field.) We also have bedunkers here trying to argue that none of the buildings fell straight down.

...
ergo, if the debris fields were symmetrical...





... then I suppose Quasimodo was attractive to women, due to the perfect symmetry of his features...
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 05:47 PM   #68
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Like I said, Dave, your diagrams show high symmetry for what were supposedly random building events.

Dave seems to think that debris falling from half a kilometre up in the sky should arrange itself into a strict geometrical pattern for it to be called symmetrical. He would probably argue that trees don't grow symmetrically either, because some branches are longer or "misplaced".
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 06:25 PM   #69
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Nope. Not sifting through pages and pages for posts.
Oh. it's very simple: because some debris fell into the footprint of the WTC it's proof of inside jobby job. And the existence of debris outside the footprint means massive explosions and thus inside jobby job.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 06:27 PM   #70
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
JREF 9/11 bedunkers, please explain how a building falling onto its footprint falls in a fundamentally different way than a building falling into its footprint.
It's a smart person thing, you wouldn't understand.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 06:37 PM   #71
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Like I said, Dave, your diagrams show high symmetry for what were supposedly random building events.

Dave seems to think that debris falling from half a kilometre up in the sky should arrange itself into a strict geometrical pattern for it to be called symmetrical. He would probably argue that trees don't grow symmetrically either, because some branches are longer or "misplaced".
How asymmetrical would it have to be in order to not be suspicious to you?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 06:42 PM   #72
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Like I said, Dave, your diagrams show high symmetry for what were supposedly random building events.
No, they absolutely do not.

I don't see how you can say that without blatantly and willfully lying about it.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 07:00 PM   #73
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
sounds of CD in ergos video were deleted and replaced with music.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So uke and Quad don't want to answer this question. I'll put it to other bedunkers:

Are the imploded buildings in this video falling into or onto their footprints? And what is the difference? Thanks.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Here is a BETTER video WITHOUT the sound deleted and replaced with music,

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 07:00 PM   #74
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,321
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
ProBono, do you know why they were asking that question?

To bring a building down into its footprint is another way of saying to implode it or bring it down in a controlled manner. The expression describes the building falling as a whole, rapidly, straight down, into a debris pile at and/or below ground level. This happened in both the cases of the towers and WTC 7, although in different manners.
LOL

Still dodging eh?
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 07:45 PM   #75
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Good answer, Quad.



Nope. I'm not going to repeat arguments I've gone over ad nauseum.
Ad nauseam is the right expression. Truthers urinating on the memories of the victims makes me want to puke.

Last edited by dafydd; 15th July 2011 at 07:47 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 07:50 PM   #76
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
ProBono, do you know why they were asking that question?

To bring a building down into its footprint is another way of saying to implode it or bring it down in a controlled manner. The expression describes the building falling as a whole, rapidly, straight down, into a debris pile at and/or below ground level. This happened in both the cases of the towers and WTC 7, although in different manners.
What are your qualifications in the fields of engineering and controlled demolition?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 08:18 PM   #77
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
It's a smart person thing, you wouldn't understand.
Well, it is D'oh P.!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 10:06 PM   #78
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Ergo,

If you can't figure out the difference between "into" and "onto" without the help of someone else, you shouldn't broadcast it.

Just FYI.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 10:58 PM   #79
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Like I said, Dave, your diagrams show high symmetry for what were supposedly random building events.

Dave seems to think that debris falling from half a kilometre up in the sky should arrange itself into a strict geometrical pattern for it to be called symmetrical. He would probably argue that trees don't grow symmetrically either, because some branches are longer or "misplaced".
Not quite correct. I just think that debris falling from half a kilometre up in the sky should arrange itself into a symmetrical pattern for it to be called symmetrical.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Ergo,

If you can't figure out the difference between "into" and "onto" without the help of someone else, you shouldn't broadcast it.

Just FYI.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2011, 11:13 PM   #80
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Not quite correct. I just think that debris falling from half a kilometre up in the sky should arrange itself into a symmetrical pattern for it to be called symmetrical.
And the debris falling roughly on the lines you've superimposed is somehow not symmetrical.

Care to explain for us how a random, organic, yet symmetrical pattern of dissociated matter would arrange itself, Dave? Or would you prefer just to admit you have no qualifications in making this assessment?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.