Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Did this building fall on top of another, and across the street on the other side?
No. Sheesh!
Q's about AE911T
- Thread starter phatred
- Start date
Did this building fall on top of another, and across the street on the other side?
No. Sheesh!
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Did the Landmark fall on top of another building, and across a 4-lane street on the other side?
No.
But WTC7 did.
Sheesh!
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Did this building fall across the street? Would it have fallen on top of a neighbouring building if there'd been one? (And btw, did you notice the series of many loud explosions just before collapse initiation, just like you hear in all such demolitions?)
No? But WTC7 fell into another building, and crossed the street on the other side.
Sheesh!
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Only.if.it.falls.STRAIGHT.down.into.its.own.footprint.
WTC7 didn't fall STRAIGHT down.
It didn't fall into its own footprint, unless the roof of fiterman hall was part of that footprint.
It really is so simple that a 5th grader can figure that out... why can't you?
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Hey..
so why didn't the caracas tower collapse? Have you figured that out yet?
how about those "loose particles" crushing the car?
or how "loose particles" can destroy buildings?
I know that if you can figure any one of those out, maybe you can figure out the whole "footprint" thingee...
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
I love it when I get to hand Ergo his ass.... It is like a holiday picnic with potato salad, fun times with family and fireworks.
hey ergo.
In this video you posted... did the imploded building collapse and strike the buildings next to it? outside of the footprint of the site? Did it cross a road and strike a building next to it on the freaking roof?
Take a good look at 47 to 53ish seconds and at 135. Did it strike the roof? Did it strike ANY parts of the adjacent buildings? Did they strike the facade of any of those buildings? Hmmmm? Did any of it even strike the huge semi taht is parked right next to the building? I'm sure it must have collapsed in "loose particles" struck the semi and left it completely undamaged... right?
Now if it was a wtc7 CD, I guess it would not only have crossed that street, it would have buried the semi, and even struck the cameras..... right? Isn't that was a "collapse footprint" does?
p.s. have you figured out how the reinforced concrete in the caracas tower prevented any major collapse yet?
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Well as we already know he can't draw a free body diagram and his arguments are just from incredulity and ignorance... maybe he can do it in cartoon fashion... but I doubt it.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Proof why "bee dunkers" should not argue with idiots.
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
"Arguing" with bee dunkers:
"Parts" of the building being ejected laterally means the building fell "sideways"
I think probably not only do bee dunkers not know what "sideways" means, they clearly don't understand what "straight down" means, either. And we already know they have no clue what a "footprint" is.
The purpose of controlled demolition is to bring buildings down into their own footprints, in order to minimize collateral damage. Buildings that have been imploded can and do partially fall outside those footprints. Sometimes they fall at an angle. Sometimes things get ejected to the side. The rubble pile clearly has to spread beyond the building's design footprint, since you've created a horizontal mess from an intact vertical structure. None of this means the building fell "sideways", unless it has literally toppled over. Bee dunkers may not ever understand this, but judging by the few remaining who consider this a critical topic, I don't think we need to worry about them.
But hey, guys, have you ever wondered what could cause chunks of building to eject laterally? What indeed did hit Fiterman Hall? What caused the 20-storey chunk that was gouged out of the back of WTC7 that no one seems to have a picture of? What caused all the damage to those buildings on Barclay long before WTC7 collapsed? These are good questions, but you don't seem to be asking them.
What has become really silly about this is their insistence that because 9/11 researchers have pointed out the obvious visual similarities of WTC7's descent to that of imploded buildings, then WTC7's destruction must also be as perfect as a professional demolition, as if a professional contractor was openly hired to do it and personnel were on site that day to carry it out professionally and in a controlled, tidy manner. That way no one would suspect it was deliberately brought down? Or something?
You're grasping at straws if that's the best you can come up with (and it certainly seems to be).
These same bunkers are also probably unaware that, in their "footprint argument" they are refuting their own Thomas Eagar, who wrote basically an entire paper discussing why the Towers, no less, could fall "no other way but straight down".... But that's okay. He needed debunking.
"Parts" of the building being ejected laterally means the building fell "sideways"
I think probably not only do bee dunkers not know what "sideways" means, they clearly don't understand what "straight down" means, either. And we already know they have no clue what a "footprint" is.
The purpose of controlled demolition is to bring buildings down into their own footprints, in order to minimize collateral damage. Buildings that have been imploded can and do partially fall outside those footprints. Sometimes they fall at an angle. Sometimes things get ejected to the side. The rubble pile clearly has to spread beyond the building's design footprint, since you've created a horizontal mess from an intact vertical structure. None of this means the building fell "sideways", unless it has literally toppled over. Bee dunkers may not ever understand this, but judging by the few remaining who consider this a critical topic, I don't think we need to worry about them.
But hey, guys, have you ever wondered what could cause chunks of building to eject laterally? What indeed did hit Fiterman Hall? What caused the 20-storey chunk that was gouged out of the back of WTC7 that no one seems to have a picture of? What caused all the damage to those buildings on Barclay long before WTC7 collapsed? These are good questions, but you don't seem to be asking them.
What has become really silly about this is their insistence that because 9/11 researchers have pointed out the obvious visual similarities of WTC7's descent to that of imploded buildings, then WTC7's destruction must also be as perfect as a professional demolition, as if a professional contractor was openly hired to do it and personnel were on site that day to carry it out professionally and in a controlled, tidy manner. That way no one would suspect it was deliberately brought down? Or something?
You're grasping at straws if that's the best you can come up with (and it certainly seems to be).These same bunkers are also probably unaware that, in their "footprint argument" they are refuting their own Thomas Eagar, who wrote basically an entire paper discussing why the Towers, no less, could fall "no other way but straight down".... But that's okay. He needed debunking.
Last edited:
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Citation please."Arguing" with bee dunkers:
"Parts" of the building being ejected laterally means the building fell "sideways"
I think probably not only do bee dunkers not know what "sideways" means, they clearly don't understand what "straight down" means, either. And we already know they have no clue what a "footprint" is.
The purpose of controlled demolition is to bring buildings down into their own footprints, in order to minimize collateral damage. Buildings that have been imploded can and do partially fall outside those footprints. Sometimes they fall at an angle. Sometimes things get ejected to the side. The rubble pile clearly has to spread beyond the building's design footprint, since you've created a horizontal mess from an intact vertical structure. None of this means the building fell "sideways", unless it has literally toppled over. Bee dunkers may not ever understand this, but judging by the few remaining who consider this a critical topic, I don't think we need to worry about them.
But hey, guys, have you ever wondered what could cause chunks of building to eject laterally? What indeed did hit Fiterman Hall? What caused the 20-storey chunk that was gouged out of the back of WTC7 that no one seems to have a picture of? What caused all the damage to those buildings on Barclay long before WTC7 collapsed? These are good questions, but you don't seem to be asking them.
What has become really silly about this is their insistence that because 9/11 researchers have pointed out the obvious visual similarities of WTC7's descent to that of imploded buildings, then WTC7's destruction must also be as perfect as a professional demolition, as if a professional contractor was openly hired to do it and personnel were on site that day to carry it out professionally and in a controlled, tidy manner. That way no one would suspect it was deliberately brought down? Or something?
These same bunkers are also probably unaware that, in their "footprint argument" they are refuting their own Thomas Eagar, who wrote basically an entire paper discussing why the Towers, no less, could fall "no other way but straight down".... But that's okay. He needed debunking.
<facepalm>
No you hayseed.
When a building collapses it goes down. Duh.
When a building is imploded it is brought down into its own footprint.
When a building is imploded and brought down into its footprint, it doesn't strike adjacent buildings.
If a building collapses and strikes adjacent buildings (including one on the freaking roof) then it obviously doesn't collapse into its own footprint.
Now some of the videos you chose had different demolitions requirements and abilities. It is nice to have the space to allow a building or structure to have a part take out and then to collapse sideways. Those "implosions" aren't into the "footprint" (except in truther world where footprint means whatever you want it to mean, including other buildings)
Hey ergo.. we have seen how great your research skills are (how quickly you jump on a bandwagon, and then how quickly you flee from it.)
Have you figured out the caracas fire yet? Is there a reason you keep running from it?
No sorry you are mistaken. You have no idea what a footprint is. The architectural footprint is essentially the foundation area of the building. The demolition footprint is likely to be larger but it will not exceed the property on which the building stands. Say, for example a building is surrounded on all four sides by streets. The demolition footprint will be the curb because that would be OUTSIDE the foot print.
By your own admission falling into the footprint does not include striking neighboring buildings.
Correct. I would go so far as to say that collateral damage is unacceptable because that cuts into profit. Sometimes, though, neighboring buildings are close enough that the odd small piece that may be ejected could cause damage and in that case they usually put up protective netting.
Yes they do but usually not so badly that large portions of the falling building strike other buildings or block of the majority of the streets surrounding the building.
True but the angle they fall is in towards the foot print not away.
True again, but these are small pieces and not large portion of the building falling against neighboring buildings.
I agree but not matter what that horizontal mess should not cut off streets. I would consider that an utter failure as would any city and if I was that city I would expect compensation from the demo contractor for such an error.
I wouldn't say it fell sideways but it sure didn't fall straight down either. Part of top fell laterally and struck Fitterman Hall on the roof. Part fell towards and struck the PO. Part struck the Verizon building. At least three street were completely cut off. If it had fallen straight down it would and should not have struck three other buildings and cut off at least three streets.
You successfully beedunked yourself BTW.
The lateral forces of the collapse. Not explosives. If you watch demo video virtually nothing aside from dust and gas is expelled because the blast is shaped to cut a beam and to do this it need to be against said beam.
7 WTC hit Fitterman hall as it is plain to see in a number of still and videos.
Um 1 WTC did you can see it happen in the collapse and there are pictures of the damage. However wasn't the south side the front of the building?
1 WTC is probably what you want people to say but that would be in accurate. 1 WTC did not cause all the damage.
You think they are good questions but all of them are stupid and don't mean anything.
What has become really silly about this is their insistence that because 9/11 researchers have pointed out the obvious visual similarities of WTC7's descent to that of imploded buildings, then WTC7's destruction must also be as perfect as a professional demolition, as if a professional contractor was openly hired to do it and personnel were on site that day to carry it out professionally and in a controlled, tidy manner. That way no one would suspect it was deliberately brought down? Or something?
Actually what is really silly is that toothers like you still insisting that 7 WTC was brought down by CD because it looked like a CD. Even though there no blasts, flares, no witnesses that saw any explosive charges, there was no detonator caps and wires recovered, and no incendiaries found, never mind no time or witnesses to the setting up of any of the charges either. So the best they can do say it look like a CD so it must be a CD and we will ignore and deny all other evidence/claims/etc.
These same bunkers are also probably unaware that, in their "footprint argument" they are refuting their own Thomas Eagar, who wrote basically an entire paper discussing why the Towers, no less, could fall "no other way but straight down".... But that's okay. He needed debunking.
The only one obsessed with the footprint argument is you ... oddly enough you only sometimes seem to understand what a footprint is and the other times your 'medication' kicks in and you have no clue what you are talking about and 'bee dunk' yourself (as all toothers do in the end).
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
And, hey, on a pool table, have you ever wondered why the object ball sometimes goes sideways when the cue ball hits it? Explosives. That's the reason. People are using explosives to cheat at pool. Happens all the time.
If only someone had taken the trouble, back in the 17th century, to figure out some rules for working this stuff out.
Dave
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
"Arguing" with bee dunkers:
"Parts" of the building being ejected laterally means the building fell "sideways"
I think probably not only do bee dunkers not know what "sideways" means, they clearly don't understand what "straight down" means, either. And we already know they have no clue what a "footprint" is.
The purpose of controlled demolition is to bring buildings down into their own footprints, in order to minimize collateral damage. Buildings that have been imploded can and do partially fall outside those footprints. Sometimes they fall at an angle. Sometimes things get ejected to the side. The rubble pile clearly has to spread beyond the building's design footprint, since you've created a horizontal mess from an intact vertical structure. None of this means the building fell "sideways", unless it has literally toppled over. Bee dunkers may not ever understand this, but judging by the few remaining who consider this a critical topic, I don't think we need to worry about them.
But hey, guys, have you ever wondered what could cause chunks of building to eject laterally? What indeed did hit Fiterman Hall? What caused the 20-storey chunk that was gouged out of the back of WTC7 that no one seems to have a picture of? What caused all the damage to those buildings on Barclay long before WTC7 collapsed? These are good questions, but you don't seem to be asking them.
What has become really silly about this is their insistence that because 9/11 researchers have pointed out the obvious visual similarities of WTC7's descent to that of imploded buildings, then WTC7's destruction must also be as perfect as a professional demolition, as if a professional contractor was openly hired to do it and personnel were on site that day to carry it out professionally and in a controlled, tidy manner. That way no one would suspect it was deliberately brought down? Or something?
These same bunkers are also probably unaware that, in their "footprint argument" they are refuting their own Thomas Eagar, who wrote basically an entire paper discussing why the Towers, no less, could fall "no other way but straight down".... But that's okay. He needed debunking.
Sheesh.
Let's step back a little and return to the old question we already quarreled over for days and pages:
ergo, when demo experts use word "footprint", do they have a definition of the word in mind that implies that the roof of buildings across the street could be within that footprint?
Yes or no?
Please please please please please answer with "yes", or "no".
If and when you have answered with "yes", please continue with the green questions below.
If and when you have answered with "no", please continue with the blue questions:
ergo, did WTC7 fall into its own footprint? Yes or no?
If and when you have answered with "yes", please also answer this:
- ergo, is it true or untrue that part of WTC7 fell onto the roof of a building across the street?
Had you answered with "yes" instead, then please:
- ergo, were you right or wrong when you claimed earlier in this thread that "WTC7 fell into its footprint"?
- ergo, are AE911T right or wrong when they claim that WTC7 fell into its footprint?
Now the green questions, in case you answered above that yes, roofs can be part of foorprint, then you need to answer this:
- Why did you answer that question with "no" the last time? Where you mistaken, or lying, or do I miss an option here?
- Is it possible for any building to collapse due to any reason (fire, CD, earthquake, nuke...) and not fall into its footprint? Yes or no?
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,954
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
You don't know which article I'm talking about?
Look it up yourself, bee dunker.
But in a natural collapse it does? Why and what difference would a natural collapse make to how gravity acts on a building? Please explain this.
(I'm sorry, I know the topic has ended already. It appears that some here aren't aware of it.)
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
You don't know which article I'm talking about?
Look it up yourself, bee dunker.
Nope, your claim, you back it up.
Sure could.
In a CD, they cut key load-bearing columns and support, so that when the building comes down, it doesn't rack the building a different direction than intended. It's like when a lumberjack cuts his first notch out of a tree. If he doesn't do this, and just starts cutting, the tree could fall any direction.
Same thing in a CD. If it were just set up all willy-nilly, there is not a definitive way to know which direction it will fall.
(I'm sorry, I know the topic has ended already. It appears that some here aren't aware of it.)
Case in point, you're still here.