Q's about AE911T

[Horatius]

From articles on A&E's site:

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on, but it should be clear to anyone approaching this debate in a honest manner that the "footprint" argument is a central aspect of their position. They mention it every time the mention building 7, and never once mention the debris that hit the other buildings. It's an entirely dishonest manner of presenting the evidence, and it's one they do all the time.

 

[Horatius]

Horatius, did building 7 itself crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?

Yes. That you present these as two mutually exclusive positions speaks volumes. If someone fell and hit his head on a table, would you object to someone saying, "He fell on the table"?

 

[ergo]

I could go on, but it should be clear to anyone approaching this debate in a honest manner that the "footprint" argument is a central aspect of their position. They mention it every time the mention building 7, and never once mention the debris that hit the other buildings. It's an entirely dishonest manner of presenting the evidence, and it's one they do all the time.

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

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

 

[ergo]

Yes. That you present these as two mutually exclusive positions speaks volumes. If someone fell and hit his head on a table, would you object to someone saying, "He fell on the table"?

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

So which is it? Did the building itself crash into Fiterman Hall and Verizon building, or did it eject chunks of itself as it descended?

 

[Sabretooth]

Twinstead, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?

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



This angle seems to confirm that:

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

Here's video and shots of the rubble pile:


Doesn't look like it fell "straight down into it's footprint" to me.

 

[DGM]

[qimg]http://sweetgrace.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553deebaf883401310fd7ba33970c-550wi[/qimg]

Your most noteworthy post to date. Thanks for that.

 

[ozeco41]

Your most noteworthy post to date. Thanks for that.

It looks aerodynamically unstable to me.

Wings astern of apparent centre of mass?

 

[twinstead]

Twinstead, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?

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

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

It did both. Or neither. Or one and not the other. Whatever. What it certainly DIDN'T do is fall straight down into its own footprint.

 

[ergo]

Sabretooth had a good video. (Had to take you off Ignore to quote it):

This angle seems to confirm that:

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

Don't notice the twisting, but this is a good video. Do you see the building falling straight down for half of its descent? And then it leans over to the south west (if your directions are correct) in the last half.

 

[Sabretooth]

Sabretooth had a good video. (Had to take you off Ignore to quote it):

 

[ergo]

AE posted a great photo in the other thread.

Please explain how this picture shows that building 7 fell outside the site it was built on:

 

[Sabretooth]

AE posted a great photo in the other thread.

Please explain how this picture shows that building 7 fell outside the site it was built on:

Did you post the wrong picture, or are you intentionally ignoring the visible damage to Fiterman, Verizon, Irving Trust, and the Post Office?

 

[ergo]

We have already acknowledged the damage to those buildings. You'll notice that the debris is not found between Irving Trust and Fiterman Hall, so the building did not fall onto Fiterman Hall, just some debris.

But tell us, Sabretooth, what building site is the WTC7 rubble sitting on?

 

[Sabretooth]

We have already acknowledged the damage to those buildings. You'll notice that the debris is not found between Irving Trust and Fiterman Hall, so the building did not fall onto Fiterman Hall, just some debris.

You'd have to give an idea as to when the photo was taken. Looking at the image, it seems that there are a large number of construction vehicles around the area and a crane stationed to the NW of the WTC7 debris field...which suggests cleanup is (was) already underway. This doesn't confirm anything as far as there being "no debris" between Fiterman and Irving Trust.

But tell us, Sabretooth, what building site is the WTC7 rubble sitting on?

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

 

[Dog Town]

We have already acknowledged the damage to those buildings. You'll notice that the debris is not found between Irving Trust and Fiterman Hall, so the building did not fall onto Fiterman Hall, just some debris.

Debris from 7WTC, is 7WTC!

Sheeeeeesh!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

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

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

What you imagine this proves other than the comment "into its own footprint" is wrong, I cannot tell.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

We have already acknowledged the damage to those buildings. You'll notice that the debris is not found between Irving Trust and Fiterman Hall, so the building did not fall onto Fiterman Hall, just some debris.

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

But tell us, Sabretooth, what building site is the WTC7 rubble sitting on?

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

None of these places other that the WTC7 site could honestly be described as the "footprint" of the building.

 

[ergo]

Debris from 7WTC, is 7WTC!

Just like if my body exploded and rained down onto people below and a piece of my hand landed on your head, it would be me landing on your head. Right?

 

[ergo]

Looking at the image, it seems that there are a large number of construction vehicles around the area and a crane stationed to the NW of the WTC7 debris field...which suggests cleanup is (was) already underway. This doesn't confirm anything as far as there being "no debris" between Fiterman and Irving Trust.

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

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

I don't see four surrounding buildings "containing the wreckage". I think you're trying hard to see things that aren't there.

 

[Oystein]

The problem is you haven't shown in any way that the building did not fall into its footprint.

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

You make some childish argument that because the rubble spread into the street is "proof" that it didn't fall straight down.

Liar. I did not make such an argument.

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

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

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

Strawman. No one claims that.

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

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

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

Exactly. I said the same earlier.

In fact, it points more to CD than fire.

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

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

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

For the last time, Oystein, the fact that parts of WTC 7 hit other buildings does not change the argument that it fell straight down, into its own footprint,

FALSE

and that the only buildings that have ever collapsed in that manner have done so from CD.

FALSE.