Q's about AE911T

He's also trying to attach meanings to words, that are absolutely false.

Summectrical collapse=footprint.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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?e
Click to expand...


I think he may now be attempting to argue that it was intentionally made to look like an unprofessional controlled demolition. So absolutely unprofessional that they didn't even use explosives...

DGM said:
Wait....This is a biggie from ergo. Is "dunker" out and "flunker" in?
Click to expand...


I think it's just more of his vocabulary creep.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I think he may now be attempting to argue that it was intentionally made to look like an unprofessional controlled demolition. So absolutely unprofessional that they didn't even use explosives...
Click to expand...

This may very well be a viable argument. All one needs to do is find a number of unprofessional people who are willing to crawl through the ruble of a collapsed 110 storey building, to enter a severely damaged 47 storey building that is now on fire, to rig this building unprofessionally with explosives in order to cause what appears to be an unprofessional controlled demolition, to cause this building to collapse in it’s own footprint and all of the adjacent footprints, just as long as it looks unprofessional.
Yep… its all clear to me now.
Thanks for your help.
 
fess said:
This may very well be a viable argument. All one needs to do is find a number of unprofessional people who are willing to crawl through the ruble of a collapsed 110 storey building, to enter a severely damaged 47 storey building that is now on fire, to rig this building unprofessionally with explosives in order to cause what appears to be an unprofessional controlled demolition, to cause this building to collapse in it’s own footprint and all of the adjacent footprints, just as long as it looks unprofessional.
Yep… its all clear to me now.
Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...


The fact that we hear only random explosions from the vicinity of WTC7 in the hours prior to its collapse, and no rapid and successive explosions immediately prior to the collapse, is further evidence of the cloak of unprofessionalism surrounding the whole thing.

It's pure genius. Mad, mad genius.
 
I think the NWO used those guys who were just not cut out for anything else.

That included cleaning the litter box.
 
Oystein said:
ergo said:
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:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rial_photo.jpg
Click to expand...

This picture wrecks your case.

Some debris fell on the premises of Fiterman Hall, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on the premises of the Verizon Building, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on the premises of the US Post Office, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on the premises of WTC6, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on Vesey Street, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on Barclay Street, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on Washington Street, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on West Broadway, which is outside of the footprint.
And finally, some debris managed to not leave the WTC7 plot.

So the building fell outside the footprint in all directions on the compass.
Click to expand...

The picture actually makes my case, but I guess we can't expect bee dunkers to understand this.

Your equation of debris with the building itself has a number of logical problems, to put it politely. :) Also, if you're going to suggest that building debris is the building itself, then you will have to also concede that the "building" then, by your definition (transl: debris), fell at free fall speed at all times.
 
Well, answering is something you can't do honestly, so I'm not surprised that truthful answers strike you as wrong
 
ergo said:
The picture actually makes my case, but I guess we can't expect bee dunkers to understand this.

Your equation of debris with the building itself has a number of logical problems, to put it politely. :) Also, if you're going to suggest that building debris is the building itself, then you will have to also concede that the "building" then, by your definition (transl: debris), fell at free fall speed at all times.
Click to expand...

I haven't been here very long, so maybe I'm mistaken, this has to be Poe, right?
 
ergo said:
Also, if you're going to suggest that building debris is the building itself, then you will have to also concede that the "building" then, by your definition (transl: debris), fell at free fall speed at all times.
Click to expand...

Fallacy of CompositionWP: That which is true of a part of the whole must necessarily be true of the whole. A perfect example of the type.

Dave
 
ergo said:
...
Your equation of debris with the building itself has a number of logical problems, to put it politely. :)
Click to expand...

Alright. My brand new girl friend is out on errands and won't be back for another 6 hours, so I got time to waste and will take you on here: Name 2 of those supposed logical problems, to make it plural. Please make sure not to invent strawmen.

ergo said:
Also, if you're going to suggest that building debris is the building itself, then you will have to also concede that the "building" then, by your definition (transl: debris), fell at free fall speed at all times.
Click to expand...

Outch. That dissonance hurts the ears!
 
ergo said:
The picture actually makes my case, but I guess we can't expect bee dunkers to understand this.

Your equation of debris with the building itself has a number of logical problems, to put it politely. :) Also, if you're going to suggest that building debris is the building itself, then you will have to also concede that the "building" then, by your definition (transl: debris), fell at free fall speed at all times.
Click to expand...

Hey Ergo.

did you find a reference to a "debris" footprint? Or a "collapse footprint" yet? Cuz that one you posted about a footprint royally screwed you....

Have you figured that out yet?
 
Oystein said:
Alright. My brand new girl friend is out on errands and won't be back for another 6 hours, so I got time to waste and will take you on here: Name 2 of those supposed logical problems, to make it plural. Please make sure not to invent strawmen.


Outch. That dissonance hurts the ears!
Click to expand...

See Dave's post immediately above yours, Oystein. :rolleyes:

Did "the building" (WTC 7) crash into other buildings in four opposing directions?
 
ergo said:
Thank you, Dave.
Click to expand...

For what? Pointing out that part of the building fell outside the footprint, therefore the building did not fall entirely inside the footprint, is logically sound. Claiming that, if one part of the building fell at freefall, then the whole building fell at freefall, is the fallacy of composition. You're the one presenting fallacies, not Oystein.

ergo said:
See Dave's post immediately above yours, Oystein.
Click to expand...

But, unlike ergo, Oystein will actually understand it.

Dave
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
See Dave's post immediately above yours, Oystein. :rolleyes:

Did "the building" (WTC 7) crash into other buildings in four opposing directions?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.
You claimed "a number of logical problems".

I expect YOU name at least two.
 
Last edited:
Bits of it did I would imagine. The whole building? Not so much. Is that what you want to hear?

Oh and I think Dave was suggesting that the logical fallacy belongs to you, not oystein.
 
Oystein, did "the building" (by your definition) (translation for the rest of us: debris), crash into other buildings in four directions simultaneously? Did it fall at free fall speed at all times? Yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom