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

[Dave Rogers]

It means that you can't contain 47 storeys of broken building in its literal design footprint.

So, when AE911T claim that WTC7 fell into its own footprint, they're lying, because it's impossible. At last.

It's sad that it's taken two threads to get to the point where you will actually acknowledge this.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

So they thought they would just not mention it? In a report on the extent of the structural damage of WTC7 and how and why it came down? They didn't even think to mention this? What kind of science is that?...

NIST listed damage, including damage to structural steel, on the south and west face in NCSTAR 1A, Figure 2-1 (page 17).

Please acknowledge I educated you about this, and do not lie about it in the future, please.

(The "gash" extended at least from 5th to 18th floor, and included zones with damaged structural steel as well as zones where at least granite cladding and underlying trusses were damaged)

 

[ergo]

So, how do you reconcile the existence of a short and poor-quality piece of video showing the gash with the absence of any mention of it in the report? Or aren't you interested in actually understanding things, because that would spoil the fun?

Why are you asking me to reconcile it? I wasn't on the NIST team. It is not reconcilable. It is inexcusable.

You are contradicting yourself, anyway. You are trying to assert that this gash existed and was serious and yet asking me why NIST wouldn't have included mention of it in its report. You are not making sense.

 

[triforcharity]

<Snipped ignorant rant>

I personally would also throw in complete pulverization of all contents, but that would have you all shrieking "UNFAIR!!" "TOO HARD!!" [qimg]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:eNe6U5JswOWRDM:http://teachline.ls.huji.ac.il/72682/tutorials/behappy/crying-smiley.jpg[/qimg]

And I would call you a liar. We've been through this before.

 

[ergo]

So, when AE911T claim that WTC7 fell into its own footprint, they're lying, because it's impossible. At last.

You just acknowledged that this was a strawman that you made up. Now you're resurrecting it as an actual argument.

I guess this will just continue on and on here at JREF because bee dunkers literally have no clue what they're talking about. This is yet another stundie worthy submission.

 

[triforcharity]

I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.

I'll just call you a liar, and leave it at that. The rest is too easy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You just acknowledged that this was a strawman that you made up. Now you're resurrecting it as an actual argument

No, I think you'll find that you advanced it as an actual argument. Now let me see...

It means that you can't contain 47 storeys of broken building in its literal design footprint.

Yep, you actually said that. And only ten minutes ago. Have you considered getting help for your problem with memory loss?

Dave

 

[ergo]

Whatever makes you feel better, Trifor.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why are you asking me to reconcile it? I wasn't on the NIST team.

Funnily enough, neither were any of the people here that you asked about it. Maybe you should ask NIST. Risky, though; you might get an answer, then you'd have to ignore it.

Dave

 

[ergo]

I need a robot to sit here and answer your repetitive, stupid questions.

Dave Rogers, why do demolition professionals use the term footprint? What do they mean when they try to bring a building down into its own footprint? I can see you didn't actually answer this question. Just made up one of your own. Classic bee-dodge.

 

[Dog Town]

This is yet another stundie worthy submission.

Everyone add Stundies to the LIST, of things, Ergo is clueless about!
That list is getting longer every post.

 

[Oystein]

Did they not have access to the news camera footage of the 20 storey-gash?

Read the *********** NIST reports.
Of course they used available photographic and video evidence.
And drew careful and conservative conclusions from it.
Which resulted in a map of structural damage to the south face of WTC 7.
You can see the minimum extent of the gash in the Report.

 

[twinstead]

I need a robot to sit here and answer your repetitive, stupid questions.

My irony meter just 'sploded

 

[ergo]

You're off topic, Oystein.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave Rogers, why do demolition professionals use the term footprint? What do they mean when they try to bring a building down into its own footprint? I can see you didn't actually answer this question. Just made up one of your own.

So, as I thought, you're not going to say what you meant by your made-up term "demolition footprint", just pretend that your ignorance is everybody else's fault.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

It means that you can't contain 47 storeys of broken building in its literal design footprint.

It's sad that it's taken two threads to get to the point where you will actually acknowledge this.

So it did NOT fall into its "literal" footprint. You just made that up, right?
So it fell into its - what? - illiteral (?) footprint?

I think you owe us a definition.
I think it goes along the lines of "whereever a building happens to fall, that's its footprint".
So claiming a building fell into its footprint is a tautology, right?
And is not proof of anything, right?

Why then did YOU flaunt this mantra, ans why is it so high on the list of AE911T's mantras?

 

[Oystein]

You're off topic, Oystein.

With what?

 

[GlennB]

I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.

My bolding.

Given that the link incorporates 4 such images (one is a composite) that's a strange thing to say.

Meanwhile NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 has a huge amount to say about this damage, between pp 130-170 approx, pdf pp 174-214.
It begins to look like you haven't even read that report.

 

[twinstead]

For some reason ergo and his delightful little cult telling me that the WTC7's collapse was impossible the way it was described by NIST and can only be explained by CD--in direct contradiction to the world's engineering communities--impresses me not.

But of course I'm not the one they need to impress.

 

[ergo]

@ Oystein

I'm pretty sure I've explained that a building descending symmetrically and as a whole, to the ground, as we see in all the videos, is another way of saying that it fell into its footprint, the way implosion experts try to get buildings to fall.

There is no possible way you can demolish or implode a building without having its debris spill outside the design footprint. You are reducing a tall vertical structure into a horizontal pile. Piles spread horizontally. No one can help that.

Footprint is a shorthand way of saying the building fell straight down vertically, piling on top of itself.

I think I now have explained it in every way humanly possible.