• 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.

Invitation to bedunkers to enlighten ergo on the difference between "into" and "onto"

ergo

Illuminator
ergo
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
4,339
Invitation to bedunkers to enlighten ergo on the difference between "into" and "onto"

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.
 
Last edited:
In order to answer this question, what exactly is your claim with regards to the footprint thing? Do you feel that because the towers fell into OR onto their own footprint that this is proof of controlled demolition? Or are you of the belief that because there were debris well outside of the footprint that THAT is evidence of controlled demolition?
 
Quad, you can read the threads I linked to to find that out. You can also read the 'footprint' link in my sig line. You also don't need that information to answer the question. You can answer the question directly based on your own knowledge of what "into" vs. "onto" means. Correct?
 
ergo said:
Quad, you can read the threads I linked to to find that out. You can also read the 'footprint' link in my sig line. You also don't need that information to answer the question. You can answer the question directly based on your own knowledge of what "into" vs. "onto" means. Correct?
Click to expand...

Nope. Not sifting through pages and pages for posts. I did not know there was an "into" vs "onto" argument, but I would guess that "into" means that the building collapsed into itself as you would see in an implosion in a controlled demolition. "Onto" would be what was observed in the collapse of the WTC, where the collapses started at the top and the upper portion fell "onto" the remaining portion of the building. I could be wrong of course.

Now, could you answer my questions?
 
You've heard the expression "Spare the rod, spoil the child"? That refers to onto, not into.

Understand?
 
Enlighten you? Gee thanks for the invite but I'd rather have a conversation with my cat. I think the feedback would be more intelligent....
 
into preposition

1.Expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else
- cover the bowl and put it into the fridge
- Sara got into her car and shut the door
- he walked into a trap sprung by the opposition


2.Expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something makes physical contact with something else
- he crashed into a parked car


3.Indicating a route by which someone or something may arrive at a particular destination
- the narrow road that led down into the village


4.Indicating the direction toward which someone or something is turned when confronting something else
- with the wind blowing into your face
- sobbing into her skirt


5.Indicating an object of attention or interest
- a clearer insight into what is involved
- an inquiry into the squad's practices


6.Expressing a change of state
- a peaceful protest which turned into a violent confrontation
- the fruit can be made into jam


7.Expressing the result of an action
- they forced the club into a humiliating and expensive special general meeting


8.Expressing division
- three into twelve equals four


9.(of a person) Taking a lively and active interest in (something)


onto preposition 

1.Moving to a location on (the surface of something)
- they went up onto the ridge


2.Moving aboard (a public conveyance) with the intention of traveling in it
- we got onto the train

Does that help in any way?
 
Thanks, Canis, for attempting to answer the question, even though you were not involved in the original strawman waving around.

Your definitions may help our bedunker friends, but they don't answer the question posed.

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.

Perhaps Dave Thomas would like to take a stab at it?
 
Quad4_72 said:
Nope. Not sifting through pages and pages for posts. I did not know there was an "into" vs "onto" argument, but I would guess that "into" means that the building collapsed into itself as you would see in an implosion in a controlled demolition. "Onto" would be what was observed in the collapse of the WTC, where the collapses started at the top and the upper portion fell "onto" the remaining portion of the building. I could be wrong of course.
Click to expand...

Good answer, Quad.

Now, could you answer my questions?
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not going to repeat arguments I've gone over ad nauseum.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Into collapses into itself, onto is what we saw on 9/11?

Hell, I dunno - but if you're claiming victory on one silly point, kudos! What about the hundreds of other things you've been wrong about?
 
NoahFence said:
Into collapses into itself, onto is what we saw on 9/11?

Hell, I dunno - but if you're claiming victory on one silly point, kudos! What about the hundreds of other things you've been wrong about?
Click to expand...

He isn't claiming victory. He's attempting to restore some of his credibility after the debacle were he couldn't understand the difference between a building falling "into" or "onto" it's footprint.

For your perusal, ergo. I'm pretty sure someone drew you a picture the last time around, but just in case:

The black lines represent the "footprint". The red rectangle is falling "into" the "footprint". The blue rectangle is falling "onto" the "footprint".

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/intoonto.png/
 
He isn't claiming victory. He's attempting to restore some of his credibility
Click to expand...

I might be a bit new at this so forgive me if I seem ignorant....

Wouldn't one actually have to have credibility to start with in order to get some of it back?
 
NoahFence said:
I might be a bit new at this so forgive me if I seem ignorant....

Wouldn't one actually have to have credibility to start with in order to get some of it back?
Click to expand...

I did say "attempt", mind you.
 
Uke, going with Quad's distinction between "into" and "onto" below,

Quad4_72 said:
I would guess that "into" means that the building collapsed into itself as you would see in an implosion in a controlled demolition. "Onto" would be what was observed in the collapse of the WTC, where the collapses started at the top and the upper portion fell "onto" the remaining portion of the building.
Click to expand...


can you look at this video of imploding buildings and tell me: are the buildings falling into or onto their footprints?

 
ergo said:
Uke, going with Quad's distinction between "into" and "onto" below,
Click to expand...

Why?



ergo said:
can you look at this video of imploding buildings and tell me: are the buildings falling into or onto their footprints?

Click to expand...

Mostly into as far as I can tell. This is a red herring, though, as the original "discussion" was regarding the twoofer claim that a building falling "into" its own footprint is indicative of a controlled demolition, which was laughed at as WTC 7 didn't fall "into" its footprint.

I find it funny how deep this humiliation really cut you though, ergo. To come back and whine about it several months after the fact.

Just let it go man. Scratch it up to ignorance and make sure to check your facts in the future. It'll make you a better person, and it'll draw you away from this twoofer nonsense.
 
Awesome thread ergo

Oh, wait, I have not followed the other threads you are whining about.
 
ergo said:
Uke, going with Quad's distinction between "into" and "onto" below,




can you look at this video of imploding buildings and tell me: are the buildings falling into or onto their footprints?

Click to expand...


Didn't I explain it well enough? To make a building fall "into" itself, or it's own footprint, you would need to put explosives on inner support columns and place them in such a way to make the exterior walls of the building fall inwards. These explosives are usually placed on multiple floors throughout the building. This is generally what we see in controlled demolitions, and it was not observed on 9/11.

What was observed on 9/11 was an upper portion of a building falling "onto" the lower portion of the building causing it to progressively collapse. What exactly are you not understanding?
 
Nice line drawing there, uke, but we're not talking about debris piles. We're talking about the manner of a building's descent. Without seeing the debris piles, you stated that the buildings in the video "looked" to be falling into their footprints rather than onto. How did you make this assessment?
 
ergo said:
Nice line drawing there, uke, but we're not talking about debris piles. We're talking about the manner of a building's descent. Without seeing the debris piles, you stated that the buildings in the video "looked" to be falling into their footprints rather than onto. How did you make this assessment?
Click to expand...

Without seeing the debris pile? You do understand that concrete normally doesn't bounce, right? Where we see the concrete hit the ground is generally where it will remain. The same applies to WTC 7. The debris there didn't bounce into its final position. It fell there.
 
I'm getting flashbacks of whether or not there's enough water to fight WTC 7....

or enough still breathing firefighters

or enough pressure...

ugh
 
Quad4_72 said:
What was observed on 9/11 was an upper portion of a building falling "onto" the lower portion of the building causing it to progressively collapse. What exactly are you not understanding?
Click to expand...

Certainly Bazant described the buildings (towers) as falling "essentially on their footprints". Would you agree he's talking about their falling straight down over their footprints, and not, for example, falling somewhere else?
 
ergo said:
Certainly Bazant described the buildings (towers) as falling "essentially on their footprints". Would you agree he's talking about their falling straight down over their footprints, and not, for example, falling somewhere else?
Click to expand...

:facepalm

We have been through this before ergo. We went over it and over it, and it just didn't get through to you. Drop it. You don't understand. Possibly for the same reason you think 911 was an inside job.

I must ask you why you drag this all up again. Are you trying for some "dumbest thread of the week award"? Is it masochism? Why?
 
Noah, please make your posts relevant to the topic or desist from posting here. Thanks.
 
uke2se said:
We have been through this before ergo. We went over it and over it, and it just didn't get through to you. Drop it. You don't understand. Possibly for the same reason you think 911 was an inside job.

I must ask you why you drag this all up again. Are you trying for some "dumbest thread of the week award"? Is it masochism? Why?
Click to expand...


That question was for Quad. And uke, you did not answer the question I posed to you.
 
ergo said:
That question was for Quad. And uke, you did not answer the question I posed to you.
Click to expand...

I'm under no obligation to, especially as the question was answered over and over again in the thread you are really whining about.

Since you are either unable or unwilling to educate yourself in this matter, I will leave you to keep digging your hole. This thread is a sure-fire Stundie factory.

:D
 
ergo said:
Certainly Bazant described the buildings (towers) as falling "essentially on their footprints". Would you agree he's talking about their falling straight down over their footprints, and not, for example, falling somewhere else?
Click to expand...


Yes, I would agree he is probably talking about the buildings falling over their footprint. Where else exactly would the buildings fall? This does not of course mean that no debris fell outside of the footprints, as numerous other buildings were damaged or destroyed that day. Please explain what you are getting at here.
 
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.

 
ergo said:
Thanks, Canis, for attempting to answer the question, even though you were not involved in the original strawman waving around.

Your definitions may help our bedunker friends, but they don't answer the question posed.

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.

Perhaps Dave Thomas would like to take a stab at it?
Click to expand...

I agree with uke2se, you must still be hurting over how badly you humiliated yourself to still be trying to get out of your self-dug hole.

ergo, all you're doing is trying to prevent any consensus on what these terms mean. Like all pseudoscientists, your own goal is to keep the discussion rolling, so that you can continue to obfuscate and prevaricate, preserving a tenuous 'reasonable doubt' in your over-worked mind, and in the minds of your "audience."

My original point, lo these many months ago, was that Richard Gage and the "engineers and architects" at AE911 Truthiness are really confused about the definition of 'footprint', and whether controlled demolition is proved by debris falling
  • outside the footprint with 'improbable symmetry', or
  • inside the footprint.

The AE911 Truthiness answer is, of course, "Both." Doesn't matter if debris falls inside or outside the footprint, BOTH prove "CD". I don't agree with this assertion, I'm just pointing out how illogical it is, and self-serving for 9/11 truthiness.

Given that, though, Gage's engineers and architects are themselves quite confused over WTC 1, 2, and 7 falling into or onto their footprints.

It is them you need to argue with, not us.
 
ergo said:
Please explain to us how a building falling onto its footprint falls in a fundamentally different way than a building falling into its footprint.
Click to expand...

You've got to be frakking kidding me.

Ladies and gentlemen, the state of the 9/11 truth movement on the tenth anniversary of 9/11.
 
ergo said:
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.

Click to expand...

I answered both questions. You should probably get those post-its off your glasses.

:D
 
ergo said:
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.

Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom