fonebone, you need to work on your reading comprehension as well as your formatting.
This is the thread you linked to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7378798#post7378798
From post 117 onwards, Oystein deals- very effectively- with this claim about the buildings 'falling into their own footprints'.
It's all there: I'll let you read it, and then you can say sorry.
BUT in the last post of that thread, Fonebone said "FLAPDOODLE!", and that means he says the truth!
Follow his links, and here is what he means by "into":
If you spill
most of the beer from a bottle to anywhere within 75 feet
around a pint glass, you are pouring that beer
into the pint glass.
No. Seriously. That is exactly Fonebone's definition of "collapse into the footprint" - that if "most" of the debris ends up within an area 75 feet
outside (and including) the building footprint, then it collapsed
into the footprint.
This is the damned Truth, even though no demolition expert ever described any demolition as going "into the footprint" when, in reality, much of the debris landed 75 feet outside of it, and some even further away.
(That thread back in 2011 however answered a different question than Fonebone raised here: He claimed the other day that "the LIDAR images reveals the majority of the towers both collapsed into their building footprints", which some have denied. I happen to think however that this, that Fonebone is correct: My best guess would be that >50% of the mass of each of the three towers ended up inside the respective original building footprints.
BUT that does NOT at all mean they "collapse into the footprint" in the sense that experts in the demolitions industry use that term.
Fonebone is deliberately trying to confuse and obfuscate.)
Let's recap:
Originally, Truthers made the claim that the WTC towers "
fell into their own footprints", and that this is "
evidence for CD", because "
CDs make buildings collapse into their footprints".
It was pointed out that Truthers also claimed that WTC1+2 also "exploded" all over the place, and their debris covered many acres of ground, and that this wildly falling outside the footprint is
also "evidence for CD". So whatever way a building collapses - "into the footprint" or "not into the footprint", it's "
evidence for CD" according to Truthers.
So Truthers retreated and set their sight on WTC7 and hung on to the claim that at least "
WTC7 fell into its footprint" - and again that this is "
evidence for CD", because that is what demolitions experts do when they make buildings collapse.
It has been pointed out by me to Ergo 10 years ago, that
a) In a large majority of explosive demolitions, they do NOT aim at making the building collapse "into its footprint" - it usually suffices to keep the debris confined to a defined area that includes the footprint PLUS some safe area around it. The aim is to keep surrounding property and infrastructure undamaged.
b) In the few cases were the demolition experts say that the collapse occurred "into the footprint", they really mean it: That even things very close to the building remain untouched. E.g. an adjacent street remains so perfectly clear of debris and even dirt that it is opened an hour later.
It is clear as day that WTC7 did not at all fall "into its footprint", as debris covered and blocked and rendered unusable all four surrounding streets for weeks, and it caused devastating damage to buildings across those streets.
And that is where we stand: Even though perhaps "most" of the towers' mass ended up within the footprints, none fell "into" its footprint. Which is why Fonebone and Ergo operate with attempted obfuscation by quoting sources such as Bazant, NIST, FEMA, who all stated in some way that the buildings collapsed "on" or "onto" the footprints - or that "most" of them did.
The lying pair of Ergo and Fonebone would go on with a sleigh of hand and try to pass by the laughable proposition that "into" means essentially the same as "onto", and that "most" is a qualifier equivalent to "all".
No one is falling for those lies, but they are obnoxious.
