9/11 Bee dunkers are unclear: Did Building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell?

[Oystein]

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5lYgKqL7Q&feature=related
...

At 2:24 we see that the Fire Department New York has a special truck labelled "COLLAPSE RESCUE".
I wonder why they have such a thing if buildings can't collapse from fire...

 

[Oystein]

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

Liar.
Kader Toy factory, 1993.
Steel-framed building.has.collapsed.completely.from fire.before 9/11

I call you a liar because you already have discussed Kader here.
There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 was a steel-framed building.
There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 collapsed completely.
There is no doubt that it did so solely due to fire.

 

[TruthersLie]

Alienentity, do you expect 47 storeys of building debris not to spread horizontally? How would you fit 47 storeys of broken building into the building's design footprint? A: Don't let it collapse.

just a quick question Ergo.

how does the "debris piles spread horizontally" to the 8th story of the building right next to wtc7, when the "debris pile" (according to most truthers) was tidy, small and tiny? (in fact the images show it was less than 3 stories tall).

How does this "debris pile" manage to strike a roof that is 8 floors up? Hmmm?

 

[TruthersLie]

Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing. Any collapse of the building would be over its footprint, unless something pushed it over.

The "fall into its footprint" claim describes the building's smooth, symmetrical descent as a whole to the ground. It has nothing to do with the debris footprint.

There you go again.. using words you don't know incorrectly.

So we add in symmetrical (I knew it would show up) to your spelling and vocab list

Please tell me how a building which has the eastern mechancial penthouse collapse 8 seconds before the rest of the building has a "symmetrical" collapse? Was there a western mechanical penthouse that collapsed 8 seconds AFTER the rest of the collapse?

or do you mean how seeing 3 corners collapse and you then extrapolate the 4th corner which we can't see to try to say that shows "symmetry?"

Or do you mean the roof line? (which kinks, so we know that wasn't symmetrical)

I love it when twoofs use words that they don't understand.

 

[JAStewart]

Honestly guys I don't know how you can stomach this stuff anymore. Ergo was putting words into people's mouths, entirely disregarding everyone else's posts and expecting full attention to be paid to his.

Four pages later and I see no different. You'd almost be better withdrawing, letting him believe that he had "made an victory" and the world would be better off.

 

[Cuddles]

The the "truth" cult teaches that the building collapsed into its own footprint, just like a CD.

Another thing probably worth clarifying is that a controlled demolition does not make buildings collapse into their own footprints. A CD makes a building collapse where the people demolishing it want it to. That is often into its own footprint, but by no means always. For example:


Hell, just go here and see as many non-footprint CDs as you like.

Which just makes this whole argument even sillier. Where the buildings ended up is completely irrelevant to the question of a conspiracy. All you have to do is say that the buildings were demolished in such a way as to spread the rubble around a bit. This has a huge advantage over most conspiracy claims of not only being possible, but also actually matching what is seen (assuming the standard hush-a-boom explosives and space lasers of course).

So why do people like ergo insist on telling such obvious lies, when the things they're lying about are utterly irrelevant to the larger claim that they're trying to support? WTC 7 did not collapse in its own footprint, and there's no point arguing about it with anyone who has eyes. So why bother when you can make exactly the same claims of conspiracy without lying about where it collapsed?

 

[ergo]

You do understand what "moving the goalposts" means, don't you? (Hint: It doesn't mean "saying something factually incorrect".)

No, what it means is when you are asked for precedents or other examples of an event that is not explainable by the facts presented, those precedents and examples need to match, or at least come close, to the particulars of the situation in question.

In this case, those are: Steel-framed highrises. Fire. Complete, rapid collapse.

Those are the goalposts that have always been there. What did you think were there?

I personally would also throw in complete pulverization of all contents, but that would have you all shrieking "UNFAIR!!" "TOO HARD!!"

 

[ergo]

Which just makes this whole argument even sillier.

I'll concur with this.

WTC 7 did not collapse in its own footprint,

Where did it collapse?

 

[twinstead]

Which just makes this whole argument even sillier. Where the buildings ended up is completely irrelevant to the question of a conspiracy. All you have to do is say that the buildings were demolished in such a way as to spread the rubble around a bit. This has a huge advantage over most conspiracy claims of not only being possible, but also actually matching what is seen (assuming the standard hush-a-boom explosives and space lasers of course).

So why do people like ergo insist on telling such obvious lies, when the things they're lying about are utterly irrelevant to the larger claim that they're trying to support? WTC 7 did not collapse in its own footprint, and there's no point arguing about it with anyone who has eyes. So why bother when you can make exactly the same claims of conspiracy without lying about where it collapsed?

That's why internet warriors like ergo crack me up. He spends 4 pages of this thread asking a stupid question because he thinks he's clever and sharp and all truthy and he's got the "bee dunkers" on the ropes when it actually makes no difference at all.

If WTC7 was a CD, why would it necessarily fall into its own footprint? Why would it necessarily be symmetrical? Why on Earth would whoever decided to take that building down want to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A CD in the first place?

You'd think that the "controlled" part of the CD in that situation would be to make it look like it collapsed from fire and damage alone. In that respect, they did a GREAT job!

 

[ergo]

Liar.
Kader Toy factory, 1993.
Steel-framed building.has.collapsed.completely.from fire.before 9/11

I call you a liar because you already have discussed Kader here.
There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 was a steel-framed building.
There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 collapsed completely.
There is no doubt that it did so solely due to fire.

The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one.

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.

Initial reports following the May 1993 fire noted that there were four buildings on the Kader site, three of which were destroyed by the fire. In a sense this is true, but the three buildings were actually a single E-shaped structure (see figure 39.13), the three primary portions of which were designated Buildings One, Two and Three.

Between the time the factory reopened and the May 1993 fire, the facility experienced several other, smaller fires. One of them, which occurred in February 1993, did considerable damage to Building Three, which was still being repaired at the time of the fire in May 1993.

None of the steel had been fireproofed.

 

[Jackanory]

I'll concur with this.



Where did it collapse?

Demolition companies do not use the term 'footprint'. Architects, builders and planning departments use the term 'footprint'. It is specifically used in the UK to specify the area that a developer or builder can build up from. Due to the 'green belt' areas we are restricted in where we can build. Many developers are therefore resorting to demolishing existing dwellings and rebuilding modern property. The planners stipulate that they can only rebuild using the existing 'footprint'. i.e The existing footing or foundations. The 'footprint' does not include the land, garden or surroundings area that the property sits upon. When submitting plans, the 'footprint' is a key detail and is clearly visible as the footings/foundations at the extreme perimeter of said building. The very term 'footprint' is a simple one. The print of a foot. The area covered as we stand.

By that definition, which in the UK is very clear, no building on 911 fell within its own 'footprint'. Does the USA have another use for this term?

 

[tsig]

The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one.

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.





None of the steel had been fireproofed.

Why would it have to be since fire can't cause steel to fail.

Footshot!

 

[twinstead]

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.

The fact it didn't have huge pieces of skyscraper fall on it like WTC7 did kind of even out the playing field.

 

[ergo]

Demolition companies do not use the term 'footprint'.

How Stuff Works: Building Implosion

When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.

Building Implosion - Wikipedia

Large buildings, tall chimneys, smokestacks, and increasingly some smaller structures may be destroyed by building implosion using explosives. Imploding a building is very fast — the collapse itself only takes seconds — and an expert can ensure that the building falls into its own footprint, so as not to damage neighboring structures.

Building Implosion

This controlled demolition technique refers to a specific need: when a building has to collapse as close as possible to its footprint to minimize physical damage to its immediate surroundings

Controlled Demolition Inc.

Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called the Hudson's project "the greatest dynamic-structural-control challenge the company had ever faced." CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building's 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft. by 220 ft. footprint of the structure.

Cooling Tower Implosion Details

To implode the tower, CDI will place explosives in the lower half of the tower which, when detonated, will cause the tower to fall into itself. Debris will be contained almost entirely within the tower's footprint. The implosion, from the first detonation of explosives to the settling of the tower, will take about 8 seconds.

 

[ergo]

The fact it didn't have huge pieces of skyscraper fall on it like WTC7 did kind of even out the playing field.

Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How Stuff Works: Building Implosion




Building Implosion - Wikipedia





Building Implosion




Controlled Demolition Inc.




Cooling Tower Implosion Details

And did you notice that every one of these uses of the word "footprint" refers to the design footprint of the building, and none of them to the alternative meaning that you made up, attributed to the demolition industry, and then refused to define?

You weren't lying, by any chance, when you said "footprint" meant something different to the demolition industry, were you?

Dave

 

[ergo]

Jackanory said that the demolition industry doesn't use the term.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/detailsofdamagetowtc7

You'll notice that the south face of the building is more or less cut in half.

(Well, actually, no you won't, because you don't want to see it.)

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7.

You'll have to accept the dozens of eye witness accounts because they damage was on the side of the building facing the WTC1 and 2, where of course nobody had cameras.

But you know that, huh mister clever debate guy?

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/wtc-7-was-severely-damaged-on-south.html

 

[Dave Rogers]

Jackanory said that the demolition industry doesn't use the term.

And you said it has its own special meaning. Looks like you were making that up.

Dave