• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

ergo said:
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.

I don't think the debris pile is suspicious. It is right over the building site. You know....where the building was?
Click to expand...

'debris footprint' , 'design footprint', 'demolition footprint', 'implosion footprint' ????? Which is it?

The web you weave is so intricate that it is difficult to keep up with the line of stupid.

Do you do the Tango too?
 
twinstead said:
He knows that. Turning the argument in the direction he did was just a debate technique to keep from having to admit the debris path is inconclusive concerning CD, yet that is the only evidence he has.

In lieu of any corroborating evidence of CD, a rational person can only conclude it wasn't.
Click to expand...

It just seems like a better argument to simply point out that even if the towers all fell over like trees, that still wouldn't mean it WASN'T a demolition!

Otherwise you're arguing semantics over and over about what "footprint" means, when its irrelevant. If he is saying that the building falling outside its footprint (however he defines it) would show its not a demolition, then show him demolitions that do the same and then ask why they didn't do that on 911 if it makes it look less like a demolition?

That way you're not stuck on semantics... but he ignores all my posts so maybe I'm on ignore.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
It just seems like a better argument to simply point out that even if the towers all fell over like trees, that still wouldn't mean it WASN'T a demolition!

Otherwise you're arguing semantics over and over about what "footprint" means, when its irrelevant. If he is saying that the building falling outside its footprint (however he defines it) would show its not a demolition, then show him demolitions that do the same and then ask why they didn't do that on 911 if it makes it look less like a demolition?
Click to expand...

Yup. He certainly can and SHOULD counter with that. If how the building fell isn't solely indicative of CD OR collapse by fire and damage alone, how do we know it wasn't a CD? But, then that will turn the debate toward the VAST amount of evidence that supports the commonly-held narrative and expose the fact that once he gives up the "collapse looked like CD" mantra all is lost.

He is taking a cue from others like RedIbis who can go on about irrelevant minutiae for pages and pages and pages to avoid discussing the meat of the issue or even (gasp!) coming up with a viable alternative theory that takes into consideration ALL the available evidence better than the commonly-held narrative.
 
Last edited:
Like it matters...even if they did fall over truthers would be posting the same stupid video of failed CD's saying, "Look! It looks just like what happens when bombs are used! People heard explosions and explosives made these buildings fall over so it must be an INSIDE JOB!!! OMG!!!1111eleventy". The non-falsifiability of "truth".
 
grandmastershek said:
Like it matters...even if they did fall over truthers would be posting the same stupid video of failed CD's saying, "Look! It looks just like what happens when bombs are used! People heard explosions and explosives made these buildings fall over so it must be an INSIDE JOB!!! OMG!!!1111eleventy". The non-falsifiability of "truth".
Click to expand...

Exactly my point :)

The China demolition wasn't even a failed demolition and many of the buildings fell over like trees.
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha.
I feel like I just took a time machine to 5 years ago.
This guy has no idea what he's talking about. He's just proved he's never read the NIST report.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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?
Click to expand...
ergo said:
Jackanory said that the demolition industry doesn't use the term.
Click to expand...


Interesting... The unwell individual presents evidence to counter an opponent's claim. That evidence happens to also contain contradictions of a previous claim made by the unwell individual. The unwell individual then refuses to acknowledge such contradictions because the evidence was presented for a different purpose.
 
Yea be careful, ergo is setting the rhetorical trap; if he can show that this was "the first time" it's ever happened, we ALL know that there is no chance of anything happening for the first time. Ever.

Inside job!!@!@111!1111!!!!!!
 
This thread was dead the minute Ergo thought it up.

WTC7 was brought down by fire & it didn't fall into it's own footprint. Ergo is niether a firefighter or structural engineer. His profession should be brought into question.
 
ergo said:
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.

I don't think the debris pile is suspicious. It is right over the building site. You know....where the building was?
Click to expand...

This is the funniest thing I've ever read.

What's that...3 or 4 Stundies in the same post?

:dl:
 
What the hell happened to my thread?? It's full of bee ka-ka!

Who can wade through all this crap?? I think I have better things to do tonight...
 
ergo said:
What the hell happened to my thread?? It's full of bee ka-ka!

Who can wade through all this crap?? I think I have better things to do tonight...
Click to expand...

Poor Ergo.

bee dunking himself every time he opens his mouth.

So what is the footprint again? As it is used in the demolitions industry?

Did you figure out why the caracas tower didn't collapse yet?

or how long fireproofing will work?

Run away... run away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom