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, 11:19 PM   #81
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,013
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".
Add symmetry to the same list you have physics on. The diagrams show no symmetry, you need to look up the meaning. What actions are you taking to expose your claims on 911, this thread is a waste of time if you intend on convincing the world you have something of value on 911. Why not start a thread to explain your evidence and claims on 911?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
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?
Wow, you don't know what you are talking about. wow

Last edited by beachnut; 15th July 2011 at 11:21 PM.
beachnut 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, 11:24 PM   #82
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
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?
Asymmetric is the word that describes that. Then again you have problems discerning between into and onto so I can see how you might not be able to tell the difference.
__________________
"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, 11:34 PM   #83
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Well, I guess bedunkers are also the ones who see upper blocks riding magic carpets of rubble to the ground, and huge fires in buildings where there are no flames, and buildings falling sideways and all kinds of crazy directions, so it's not surprising that they don't recognize what symmetry is.

But it sounds like Sam I Am is up for answering my question, at least! Sam, please explain how the fall of a building onto its footprint is fundamentally different than a fall into its footprint in the final analysis. Thanks.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 15th July 2011 at 11:35 PM.
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, 11:50 PM   #84
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
please explain how the fall of a building onto its footprint is fundamentally different than a fall into its footprint in the final analysis. Thanks.
For the same reason that symmetrical is not the same as asymmetrical. You can fit a smaller symmetrical shape inside a larger asymmetrical one. By using the term into the footprint you are excluding anything outside of the footprint (or simply ignoring it). Onto the footprint means that at least some part of the shape is outside of the footprint but it doesn't exclude anything falling inside the footprint.
__________________
"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 16th July 2011, 02:22 AM   #85
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
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?
My qualifications are that I'm not so enamored of a spurious conspiracy theory as to think these patterns are "symmetrical";





Let's just add "Symmetry" to the Big List of things ergo is unqualified to discuss (into/onto, footprint, force, acceleration, velocity, etc.)
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 16th July 2011, 02:54 AM   #86
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, I guess bedunkers are also the ones who see upper blocks riding magic carpets of rubble to the ground, and huge fires in buildings where there are no flames, and buildings falling sideways and all kinds of crazy directions, so it's not surprising that they don't recognize what symmetry is.

But it sounds like Sam I Am is up for answering my question, at least! Sam, please explain how the fall of a building onto its footprint is fundamentally different than a fall into its footprint in the final analysis. Thanks.
I already did this numerous times in this post. You never attempted to refute my explanations or give a reason as to why they were flawed. Why were my explanations not good enough for you?
__________________
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 16th July 2011, 03:26 AM   #87
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
Here is the question again:

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.
...
Without reading the thread - it shouldn't be necessary, as the question is so very easy - here is the answer you're seeking:

"Into" conveys the idea that, after the movement is completed, that which has moved is confined by a defined limit, in this case the building footprint. This means that all of what collapsed, the entire debris, would be found inside the building footprint.
On 9/11, this was clearly not the case for any of the WTC towers: Much of their debris ended up very much outside of the footprint.
-> No tower fell into its footprint.

"Onto" conveys the idea that, after the movement is completed, that which has moved covers that which it fell onto, and/or came to rest on top of that which it is said to have fallen onto.
On 9/11, this was clearly the case for all three towers, as the debris came to a full stop on top of the respectiv footprints, covering these footprints entirely.
-> All towers fell onto their footprints.


The fundamental difference is, that "onto" allows for part of the debris to fall outside the footprint, while "into" does not.

Last edited by Oystein; 16th July 2011 at 03:37 AM.
Oystein 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 16th July 2011, 05:30 AM   #88
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Care to explain for us...
Nobody but you needs this explained. Use the word "me" instead.
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 16th July 2011, 07:56 AM   #89
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
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?
Answer my question,what are your qualifications?
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 16th July 2011, 08:02 AM   #90
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
I'd just like to point out once more that you're arguing with a guy who thinks the word 'bedunker' is witty and clever. Duh-bunker? That would be humorous because the word 'duh' has a negative connotation to it. But 'be'? And 'dunker'? No negativity. 'Bedunker' is just spelling a word wrong for the sake of spelling a word wrong. Perhaps he's trying to say something about our donut eating? I don't get it.
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon 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 16th July 2011, 08:06 AM   #91
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
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?
The buildings were symmetrical.
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 16th July 2011, 09:25 AM   #92
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by EventHorizon View Post
I'd just like to point out once more that you're arguing with a guy who thinks the word 'bedunker' is witty and clever. Duh-bunker? That would be humorous because the word 'duh' has a negative connotation to it. But 'be'? And 'dunker'? No negativity. 'Bedunker' is just spelling a word wrong for the sake of spelling a word wrong. Perhaps he's trying to say something about our donut eating? I don't get it.
Truthers don't think like normal people.
__________________
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 16th July 2011, 10:18 AM   #93
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by EventHorizon View Post
I'd just like to point out once more that you're arguing with a guy who thinks the word 'bedunker' is witty and clever. Duh-bunker? That would be humorous because the word 'duh' has a negative connotation to it. But 'be'? And 'dunker'? No negativity. 'Bedunker' is just spelling a word wrong for the sake of spelling a word wrong. Perhaps he's trying to say something about our donut eating? I don't get it.
It's a pathetic coinage,it will never catch on. The only funny thing about is that ergo thinks that it is funny. Oscar Wilde or Racine he ain't.
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 16th July 2011, 10:12 PM   #94
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Into" conveys the idea that, after the movement is completed, that which has moved is confined by a defined limit, in this case the building footprint. This means that all of what collapsed, the entire debris, would be found inside the building footprint.
On 9/11, this was clearly not the case for any of the WTC towers: Much of their debris ended up very much outside of the footprint.
-> No tower fell into its footprint.
Yes, I thought this was probably the real bedunker explanation. You are ignoring the point I mentioned in the OP that even controlled demolitions, even implosions, do not contain all the debris inside the footprint. Debris always falls outside. The aim is obviously to minimize this, but that's only an ideal. The reality is, the final debris pile of a building that has fallen onto its footprint will look not much different from one that has fallen into it.

That this has to be spelled out like this is already too silly, but apparently on this forum it does.
__________________
“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 16th July 2011, 10:32 PM   #95
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Debris always falls outside. The aim is obviously to minimize this, but that's only an ideal. The reality is, the final debris pile of a building that has fallen onto its footprint will look not much different from one that has fallen into it.
And all this time I thought they called it 'controlled demolition' for a reason.
__________________
"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 16th July 2011, 10:42 PM   #96
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
And all this time I thought they called it 'controlled demolition' for a reason.
Feel free to show us a demolition where no debris exits the building's footprint.
__________________
“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 16th July 2011, 11:36 PM   #97
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,187
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, I thought this was probably the real bedunker explanation. You are ignoring the point I mentioned in the OP that even controlled demolitions, even implosions, do not contain all the debris inside the footprint. Debris always falls outside. The aim is obviously to minimize this, but that's only an ideal. The reality is, the final debris pile of a building that has fallen onto its footprint will look not much different from one that has fallen into it.

That this has to be spelled out like this is already too silly, but apparently on this forum it does.

3 pages and you're still not getting it? Yes atleast part of the building will fall on it's own footprint, but you are ignoring the wide-spread debris. The WTC site is 16 acres, plus all the damaged buildings outside of this. That is a HUGE area of debris, a controlled demolition is kept as contained as possible.
__________________
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 17th July 2011, 01:02 AM   #98
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, I thought this was probably the real bedunker explanation. You are ignoring the point I mentioned in the OP that even controlled demolitions, even implosions, do not contain all the debris inside the footprint. Debris always falls outside. The aim is obviously to minimize this, but that's only an ideal. The reality is, the final debris pile of a building that has fallen onto its footprint will look not much different from one that has fallen into it.

That this has to be spelled out like this is already too silly, but apparently on this forum it does.
Who, except truthers, claims "that even controlled demolitions, even implosions" fall "into" the building footprint? Or that this is the aim?

A downtoan implosion would generally aim to not damage any adjacent property. This would not mean confining the debris to the building footprint, but to an area that excludes adjacent buildings, adjacent infrastructure (roads), other adjacent structures (sculptures, gardens, ...).
If you insist, I will allow you to call that behaviour, that certainly involves keeping most of the debris inside the footprint, "falling into the footprint".
But that is not at all the behaviour of any of the three towers! As the images you posted yourself most recently very clearly show, ...
... debris from WTC1 fell across Liberty Street, Church Street and Vesey Street, and destroyed the Deutsche Bank Building, the Marriott Hotel , WTC4, 1 Liberty Plaza and St. Nicholas Church,
...debris from WTC2 fell across West Street and Vesey Street, destroyed WTC5, 6 and 7, piled up on the Marriott, and severly damaged the WFC and the Verizon Building.
...WTC7 (not shown) fell across Vesey Street, Barcley Street, Washington Street and West Broadway, destroyed Fiterman Hall, piled up on WTC6, and severly damaged the Verizon and US Post Office Building.

So even if one could, loosely speaking, say that controlled demolitions, particularly implosions, aim at collapsing buildings "into" their own footprints, it is abundandly clear that this aim of implosions was not achieved, not nearly, very very far from it. It is idiocy in the highest degree to pretend anything of the kind happened.

The fact still stands:

None of the three towers fell "into" its footprint
All of them fell "onto" their footrints.


The fact also still stands that ergo doesn't know the difference between "into" and "onto"
Oystein 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 17th July 2011, 01:05 AM   #99
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Feel free to show us a demolition where no debris exits the building's footprint.
Feel free to show us a demolition where huge portions of the debris fell across 2 to 4 streets and destroyed several adjacent buildings, and experts later said "it fell into its footprint".
Oystein 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 17th July 2011, 03:53 AM   #100
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
To pile up on the total demolishion of ergo's semantic nonsense, I did a google search on the demolition industry's major news website, implosionworld.com
  • Go to google.com (as I am in Germany, I get redirected to google.de; not sure how that affects results)
  • Enter the search string: into+footprint site:implosionworld.com

I get 8 results. Upon closer inspection, only 2 of these are reports of building collapses described as actually going "into" their own "footprints":
  1. Fargo Packing Complex in Buffalo, NY
  2. St. Fabian's Tower in London, England
The 1. report is only a brief mention that describes no peculiar circumstances or preparations, but the text...
Originally Posted by implosionworld.com
The structure collapsed gently into its own footprint, and all nearby roadways were re-opened to traffic within the hour.
...highlights a huge, a major difference to what happened at the World Trade Center: When a building is said to fall into its footprint, no debris clutters or damages the roads around the property. Contrast that with the weeks of mayhem and chaos on West Broadway, Vesey, West, Liberty, Church, Washington, and Barcley Streets, and only a hearty facepalm will be adequate to express how bizarrely wrong ergo is when he defends describing the collapses of any of the towers as "into the footprint".
The 2. above link describes how this confinement to the footprint was achieved:
Originally Posted by implosionworld.com
To address concerns that the tower's large concrete tiles could break free and "sail off" during collapse, the entire structure was shrouded in heavy gauge geotextile fabric, which led to the project being dubbed "the big black condom" by local residents.
And the result of this is:
Originally Posted by implosionworld.com
the high-rise directly into its own footprint, and shortly thereafter community officials breathed a sigh of relief to find the Paradox Centre and all other buildings completely unscathed as promised.
Contrast that result of a building actually described by experts as falling "into" its footprint with the billions of $US of damage and destruction to at least 15 neighbouring buildings around the WTC complex, and it becomes immediately obvious to even most of the most blithering imbelciles how grossly wrong ergo is when he fails to notice the difference.

Of the other 6 links found by above google search, 1 describes specifically how and why none of the WTC towers fell "into" their footprints:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf
Originally Posted by implosionworld.com
ASSERTION #2
"But they fell straight into their own footprint"
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not
...
The facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers' footprints, making the event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.
ergo must concede at this time: Real experts directly refute and contradict him. He should explain why we should trust his opinion more than that of real experts.


Another article destroys the truther meme, hinted at by ergo, that planned demolitions generally, or often, seek to put the building in its footprint:
Quote:
(Speaking of which, did you know that only a very small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true implosions? Most are designed to drop the building into a designated space, like a parking lot. It's a rarity when a building must fall within it's own footprint...)

The other 4 search results do not talk about anything going "into" any "footprint" at all. A couple however are explicit in describing how the debris is confined to an area extending beyond the footprint by only a small distance, like ten meters or "a few feet".
So even though the experts do not descibe such closely confined collapses as "into" the footprint but are clear that they are not, it's still clear how utterly different is that which they describe from what ergo describes in similar ways, when the WTC tower debris fell as far away from the footprints as 200 meters and more.



Summary:
  • Demolition experts rarely attempt to confine collapse debris to the building footprint
  • Consequently, it is rare to find a planned implosion being described by experts as "into the footprint"
  • When they do, the event is associated with absolutely no damage to nearby buildings and roads that closely surround the implosion site
  • This contrasts to the most extreme degree with the huge amount of damage witnessed at the WTC
  • Consequently, demolition experts expressedly contradict the assertion that any tower fell into its footprint on 9/11
Ergo is as wrong about his use of the expression "into the footprint" as he could possibly be.
Oystein 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 17th July 2011, 04:09 AM   #101
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
He's invested too much to admit his mistake.
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 17th July 2011, 07:26 AM   #102
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
He's invested too much to admit his mistake.
What's hilarious is that the into v onto malarky had mostly been forgotten, it was dead, but ergo has sought to resurrect it. It's obviously hurt him deeply and he just can't resist. Reminds me of the phrase:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and have all doubt removed.

I think this thread should be moved into onto the humour section.
Sunstealer 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 17th July 2011, 08:57 AM   #103
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
What's hilarious is that the into v onto malarky had mostly been forgotten, it was dead, but ergo has sought to resurrect it. It's obviously hurt him deeply and he just can't resist. Reminds me of the phrase:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and have all doubt removed.

I think this thread should be moved into onto the humour section.
The whole 911 section should be moved to humour. That's all it's good for.
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 17th July 2011, 11:00 AM   #104
fess
Graduate Poster
 
fess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
the difference between "into" and "onto"
Ergo, when you got home from the pub to start this thread, did you go into your house, or onto your house?
__________________
My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.
fess 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 17th July 2011, 11:04 AM   #105
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by fess View Post
Ergo, when you got home from the pub to start this thread, did you go into your house, or onto your house?
You are merely assuming that ergo's home is a house. Got evidence?

Oystein 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 17th July 2011, 12:09 PM   #106
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Thanks, Canis, for attempting to answer the question, even though you were not involved in the original strawman waving around.
Passive-aggressive insults and goalpost moving? Well, I never.

Quote:
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.
If any part of the building remains within its footprint, that's "onto". If all of the collapsed building remains within said footprint, that's "into". "Into" would qualify as part of the "onto" set of results, while "onto" is not necessarily the same as "into".

"Any number ending in 4 is an even number, but an even number doesn't necessarily end in 4."

The collapses were "onto" their footprints, but not "into".

You're wrong.

Give up.
000063 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 17th July 2011, 12:15 PM   #107
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
How asymmetrical would it have to be in order to not be suspicious to you?
Why do Truthers never give their falsifiability conditions?

This is a rhetorical question: because they usually can't even imagine a universe where they're wrong.
000063 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 17th July 2011, 03:25 PM   #108
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,187
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Passive-aggressive insults and goalpost moving? Well, I never.

If any part of the building remains within its footprint, that's "onto". If all of the collapsed building remains within said footprint, that's "into". "Into" would qualify as part of the "onto" set of results, while "onto" is not necessarily the same as "into".

"Any number ending in 4 is an even number, but an even number doesn't necessarily end in 4."

The collapses were "onto" their footprints, but not "into".

You're wrong.

Give up.
ergo ain't never gonna figure that he's talking out his butt. He'll crawl into his hole (or should that be onto?) and come out after a while, to spew out his delusions and ignore everything we say in response.
__________________
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 17th July 2011, 05:36 PM   #109
fess
Graduate Poster
 
fess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You are merely assuming that ergo's home is a house. Got evidence?


You're right, I have to admit. Assuming something certainly isn't the right thing to do in this case. He could live in a barn, a cave, a hole in the ground, or maybe even a ditch by the road. Of course he could live onto either one of them.
__________________
My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.
fess 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 17th July 2011, 07:58 PM   #110
slojoe
Scholar
 
slojoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 80
I just had two glasses of wine.



I poured the first into me and found it satisfactory.

I poured the second onto me and was most displeased. I got wet and missed the pleasant glow I associate with that second glass.

That seems to sum up the difference between into and onto pretty well Ergo, and I hope you realize the distinction is fairly useless to understanding 9/11, but will help you enjoy your wine.

In seriousness, you are quibbling semantic triviality. The visual differences between a planned implosion and the WTC collapses are sufficient to dispel any notions of controlled demolition. They are apples and oranges, or in the case of your contention regarding debris, ounces and tons, or a broken window and WTC6 getting an atrium.

Cheers, I'm off to shower.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson
slojoe 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 17th July 2011, 08:13 PM   #111
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by slojoe View Post
I poured the first into me and found it satisfactory.

I poured the second onto me and was most displeased. I got wet and missed the pleasant glow I associate with that second glass.
I saw a magazine once wherein several young women were photographed pouring wine onto themselves and I was most pleased.
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 17th July 2011, 08:17 PM   #112
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
I'm not sure I care about the difference between into and onto that's been getting thrown around.... I thought it was pointless when it started, and I haven't the faintest idea why ergo suddenly wants to make it an issue now by himself, other than to add to his roster another opportunity to refer to his critics as "beedunkers." Exactly what calling everyone one of these is supposed to accomplish as an insult exactly, is a mystery...
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 17th July 2011 at 08:18 PM.
Grizzly Bear 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 17th July 2011, 08:25 PM   #113
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Who, except truthers, claims "that even controlled demolitions, even implosions" fall "into" the building footprint?
Several bedunkers here make this claim. I'm guessing this is why they harp on their perceived critical distinction between "into" vs. "onto" a footprint.

Quote:
A downtoan implosion would generally aim to not damage any adjacent property. This would not mean confining the debris to the building footprint, but to an area that excludes adjacent buildings, adjacent infrastructure (roads), other adjacent structures (sculptures, gardens, ...).
Thanks, Oyst. That's all we needed to clarify.

I have made the same explanation at least three times now. Both prepositions mean the building fell straight down. I'm pretty sure that there will nevertheless be some here who will still try to argue that they didn't. Hopefully just a little less loudly now.
__________________
“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 17th July 2011, 08:30 PM   #114
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
What's hilarious is that the into v onto malarky had mostly been forgotten, it was dead,
Apparently some of your slower members here didn't get that memo.
__________________
“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 17th July 2011, 10:22 PM   #115
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 827
WTC1-WTC2-WTC7 ON or IN FOOTPRINTS

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Without reading the thread - it shouldn't be necessary, as the question is so very easy - here is the answer you're seeking:

"Into" conveys the idea that, after the movement is completed, that which has moved is confined by a defined limit, in this case the building footprint. This means that all of what collapsed, the entire debris, would be found inside the building footprint.
On 9/11, this was clearly not the case for any of the WTC towers: Much of their debris ended up very much outside of the footprint.
-> No tower fell into its footprint.

"Onto" conveys the idea that, after the movement is completed, that which has moved covers that which it fell onto, and/or came to rest on top of that which it is said to have fallen onto.
On 9/11, this was clearly the case for all three towers, as the debris came to a full stop on top of the respectiv footprints, covering these footprints entirely.
-> All towers fell onto their footprints.


The fundamental difference is, that "onto" allows for part of the debris to fall outside the footprint, while "into" does not.

Fonebone spent the day snorkeling in the JREF sewer.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...54#post6815954



WTC1-WTC2-WTC7 ON or In FOOTPRINTS -redux-

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers
Quote:
Take a careful look at the words "most" and "not much larger".
Quote:

Dave
Fonebone <

Better yet
Howsabout I use the NIST own words and borrow the NIST's dictionary !

NIST NCSTAR 1 A 2.2.2 2nd paragraph
[excerpt]
Quote:
When the WTC1 collapsed at 10:28:22 a.m.
--most-- of the debris landed--in-- an area --not much larger-- than the original
WTC1 building footprint.

Dr. Brazant : (WTC1 & WTC2 ) "collapsed essentially on their footprint"

NIST : "most of the debris landed
in an area not much larger than the original
WTC1 building footprint."

FEMA : The WTC7 tower debris field averaged 75 feet from the original building footprint.



Ok Dave - I carefully looked at the words "most' and "not much larger' as
you suggested.
Now Dave , tell me ,after you examine this post,
what word does the NIST use between those words you suggest I examined ?
The word the NIST used is show in RED.
--CORRECT -- !!
,the word used by the NIST to describe where most of the WTC1 debris
fell is "IN" an area not much larger than the original WTC1 footprint.
Dr. Bazant says "ON"

NOW Let's examine the LIDAR evidence eh.
Can you locate the WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7 footprints
in this LIDAR ?
This LIDAR scan of the WTC murder scene was captured four days after the 9-11 attack.
Does the rectangular pillow shaped mound at the center left contradict the FEMA statement of a small neat debris field averaging 75 feet ? No It does Not !
The LIDAR is false-color coded indicator of height using
sea-level as "0" reference assigned medium green.
Darker shades of green indicate depths below sea-level

The two twin towers WTC1 & WTC2 and the WTC6 office buildings and the WTC3 Marriot Hotel were constructed over the "bath-tub" caisson and had basements in the bedrock 70 feet below the Hudson river at sea-level.
The nearby buildings verify the colors move from green to yellow to orange to brown as the building's height rises.
The pillow shaped mound of WTC7 debris barely shows
traces of yellow in the light green of the pile compared to the six story height of the WTC6 in bright yellow.
Likewise the two towers show shallow mounds of debris
in the centers that again barely show yellow amongst the green.
The NIST , Dr Bazant,and the FEMA drafts all agree with the LIDAR evidence. The 3 WTC towers1,2, & 7 all fell in or on their respective footprints.
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone 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 17th July 2011, 10:43 PM   #116
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Fone,

Has their ever been a time when someone referred to a buildings footprint, and there was another building in there?

I'm referring specifically to 7WTC and Fitterman Hall.
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 17th July 2011, 11:46 PM   #117
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Several bedunkers here make this claim.
Which claim now? That planned implosions make buildings fall into their footprints? All of them? Most of them? Can you back up that claim by linking to any posts by debunkers?
But even if some make that claim, it would be incorrect.
My perception (could be wrong as well) is that the meme "into the footprint" and making the commection to CD originated from truthers and has traction there.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm guessing this is why they harp on their perceived critical distinction between "into" vs. "onto" a footprint.
No. They harp on it because you implied, in the posts and thread that you linked to in your OP, that Bazant's "on the footprint" supports your claim of "into the footprint", when in fact it doesn't.
Bazant is quite clear: a high percentage of the rubble did fall straight down, on the footprint, and the spread out to the sides. So, much of the debris did not end up inside the footprint, but outside - it did not fall "into" the footprint. In addition, a smaller, but very significant percentage never fell "on" the footprint, but way outside of it.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Thanks, Oyst. That's all we needed to clarify.
Wait wait wait! What I clarified is that CDs usually do NOT aim to go into the footprint!

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I have made the same explanation at least three times now.
Where??

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Both prepositions mean the building fell straight down.
Yes, but that does not mean they are the same. They are very different, and you just hand-waved away the major differences, whereby all the world can clearly see how ridiculously wrong you were when you claimed that WTC7 fell into its footprint.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm pretty sure that there will nevertheless be some here who will still try to argue that they didn't. Hopefully just a little less loudly now.
Strawman. No-one claims the towers didn't fall essentially straight down. No-one denies all towers fell onto their footprints. However, everybody except you denies they fell into their footprints. They did not, not even by the most lenient definitions of the word.
Oystein 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 18th July 2011, 12:01 AM   #118
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
...
NIST : "most of the debris landed in an area not much larger than the original
WTC1 building footprint."

FEMA : The WTC7 tower debris field averaged 75 feet from the original building footprint.
...
As I have shown, experts do not call that kind of behaviour "falling into the building footprint".

Both NIST and FEMA are very clear that they are NOT talking about the building footprint, but an area larger than the building footprint. It is abundantly clear than that no building fell into the building footprint - all buildings fell into areas larger than the building footprint. No building even managed to stay confined within their own lots.
Oystein 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 18th July 2011, 12:11 AM   #119
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
The 3 WTC towers1,2, & 7 all fell in or on their respective footprints.
You do realize that this comment is self-contradictory, don't you?

Al-Qeada only targeted towers 1 and 2. Seven fell precisely because the north tower did not fall into or onto its own footprint.

By acknowledging the collapse of building 7, you are implicitly conceding the footprint claim is false.
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 18th July 2011, 12:39 AM   #120
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
You do realize that this comment is self-contradictory, don't you?

Al-Qeada only targeted towers 1 and 2. Seven fell precisely because the north tower did not fall into or onto its own footprint.

By acknowledging the collapse of building 7, you are implicitly conceding the footprint claim is false.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 10:45 PM.
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.