Q's about AE911T

[tsig]

Do you think that a covert demolition operation would want to look exactly like a professional, controlled demolition?

Never done either one.

 

[tsig]

Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?

Looks like you got tangled in your own web.

 

[tsig]

AETruth doesn't talk about the debris pattern for WTC7, that I know of. The only people I see making a fuss about this are the footprint theorists on JREF.

You haven't answered my question. If you're accepting that WTC7 did eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, how does this prove it didn't fall straight down?

Because the neighboring buildings were not straight down from WTC7.

 

[tsig]

What happens is (for all those keeping score at home), twoofers get their a** handed to them...every time!

The call out to lurkers usually a sign that the end of the run is near.

 

[tsig]

No, I don't know the answer. I'm trying to understand--well, not so much your argument, but why you think you can make it without looking like a complete twit. You seem to want to imply that the bulk of the building fell some other place but down. Where did these large chunks go? Look at the various pictures and tell me.



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.

Then why use the word "footprint"?

 

[Oystein]

...
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.

DING DING DING we have winner!

Stundied

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think that a covert demolition operation would want to look exactly like a professional, controlled demolition?

Does this mean that you think WTC7's collapse didn't look like a professional controlled demolition? And, if so, what does this do to your argument that WTC7 looked so much like a professional controlled demolition that it can't possibly have been anything else?

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

OOPSIE!!


Not to mention that it seems very suspicious based on the comments. But, that is mearly speculation.

Oops! Not even close the the stimated MILLIONS of dallars of damage done to the USPO, Fitterman Hall, and The Verizon Building.

BTW, Fitterman Hall had to be demolished.

Tri. It wasn't MILLIONS... it was up to 1.6 BILLION for the damages done to the verizion buidling (but that was including damage from wtc towers collapse too).

So hundreds of millions. And Fiterman hall was a complete loss.

 

[TruthersLie]

Oopsie! Building implosion damages nearby building.

Wowsers.
You are now a bee dunker. Great job.

This bad CD threw shrapnel into nearby buildings. Dozens of pieces of shrapnel. Fabulous.

Where are the hospital records for the people who were struck by shrapnel from wtc 1,2 or 7?

I mean if they do such a ****** job of CD, why aren't there dozens of folks who were hit by shrapnel? After all, the Cd folks obviously wouldn't have put up screens, or wrapped the explosives... so there shoudl be dozens of (if not hundreds) people who were admitted to ER's around NYC on 9/11 from shrapnel. Where are they?

Self bee dunking free of charge. Thanks Ergo.

ETA: I'm sure you also watched the video of that implosion right? You heard the loud BOOMS, right?

where are they in EVERY video of the towers or wtc7? Those booms which threw debris over 142 feet in your article seem to be missing.

I'm sure you also watched the video and noticed ALL of the prep work that had to be done right? And yet no one ever noticed that in wtc7... ninjaneers!!!!!

 

[TruthersLie]

DING DING DING we have winner!

Stundied

Wait...how does that go again?
According to ergo, he was saying it collapsed into its footprint (debris footprint) because he already agreed that it didn't collapse into its architectural footprint... so now he is saying just the opposite? REally?

amazing... but then again from someone who doesn't understand center of mass, or how "loose particles" can damage anything I"m not suprised.

 

[triforcharity]

AETruth doesn't talk about the debris pattern for WTC7, that I know of. The only people I see making a fuss about this are the footprint theorists on JREF.

You haven't answered my question. If you're accepting that WTC7 did eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, how does this prove it didn't fall straight down?

That is a lie. Someone in the VERY THREAD pointed out 3-4 different people who signed AE911T's petition that talk about the building falling inside it's footprint, and even one of AE911T's flyers.

 

[ergo]

And bee flunkers still claim that the demolition industry doesn't use the term "footprint".

 

[twinstead]

Wait, ergo now I'm confused. Since you have NO physical evidence of CD, you believe that the WTC7 was CD because it LOOKED like a CD. Now you are saying that it was cleverly rigged to NOT look like a CD so as to fool all those experts who disagree with you?

So did it look like a CD or not?

 

[TruthersLie]

And bee flunkers still claim that the demolition industry doesn't use the term "footprint".

I'm still waiting for you to provide any citation in which they use it.

i found ONE document which says a collapse footprint. ONE document.

Not a single other source. Not a textbook, not a industry manual, not an industry journal.

Please provide a citation to support your claim.

Still waiting.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wait, ergo now I'm confused. Since you have NO physical evidence of CD, you believe that the WTC7 was CD because it LOOKED like a CD. Now you are saying that it was cleverly rigged to NOT look like a CD so as to fool all those experts who disagree with you?

To be fair, that's what truthers have been saying for years about the Twin Towers. Just because it doesn't make sense, that's no reason not to apply it to WTC7 too.

Dave

 

[DGM]

And bee flunkers still claim that the demolition industry doesn't use the term "footprint".

Wait....This is a biggie from ergo. Is "dunker" out and "flunker" in?

 

[Edx]

And bee flunkers still claim that the demolition industry doesn't use the term "footprint".

Once again, footprint means nothing.

I showed you a video where in China they made the buildings fall over, so if that would have looked less like demolition why didn't they do that on 911?

But that video also proves that a building NOT falling in its footprint doesn't mean it ISN'T a demolition, since it can also fall outside its footprint and be a demolition.

No point quibbling over what is and what is not a footprint, especially as it seems to be generally accepted by the truth movement that a building falling over like a tree would be the opposite of falling in its footprint.

Ergo, a building falling in its footprint or not is not therefore is not an indicator of a demolition or not. You'll need more information. Like, do we have massive explosion sounds? No.

 

[Sabretooth]

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.

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

I traced the path of the roads and circled where I see a crane. Considering that there is debris in those green lines and lying against the surrounding buildings, the debris was "contained" into that area. But not solely on it's own footprint.

 

[fess]

Someone help me. Just what is it that Ergo is trying to prove? It appears that while he/she is trying to prove something, he/she does all he/she can do to disprove it.
The only thing he seems to do well is to inject his childish nickname into just about every post.

 

[Sabretooth]

Someone help me. Just what is it that Ergo is trying to prove?

Ergo is trying to prove that WTC7 collapsed straight down into it's own footprint, thus proving a CD, even though it doesn't look like a CD, even though the damage to the other buildings suggest otherwise.

And he's providing a pile of evidence that completely disagrees with what he's trying to prove. It's been interesting to say the least.