Q's about AE911T

[ergo]

Sure could.

I'm sorry, but a 9/11 bee dunker saying "it could" doesn't carry much weight. And especially coming from stundie-prone Triforcharity, I think I'll just have to get you to point to where this has occurred in natural collapses where it wouldn't have occurred in a CD.

 

[TruthersLie]

You don't know which article I'm talking about?

I am unfamiliar with any paper written by Eagar... I do know that he did a segment for NOVA where he described the collapses.

Maybe you can provide a citation. Just like I"m still waiting for those citations on how and why the car was destroyed, or why an avalanche of "loose particles" can destroy a house, or a tsunami can flatten and destroy an island... It's only "loose particles."

Boy did you ever run away from that topic... only to come back after a few weeks...

Or how quickly you ran away from the caracas tower fire... the one I schooled you on....

So I expect you to bluster, or run away. Either one... or provide a citaiton to a paper written by Eagar.

Look it up yourself, bee dunker.

Look Stundie oops... Ergo I got tired of doing your homework for you on DBS, and owned you there too. Citation please. I even asked nicely...

But in a natural collapse it does?

Well in the instance of wtc7 it did. Since it struck adjacent buildings (which CD's don't unless the CD company wants to be sued out of business), and none of the CD's you showed struck adjacent buildings, then it isn't a CD (coupled with the lack of any distinctive noises (you know those pesky bang bang bang) or the lack of tell tale debris from explosives).

In all of the CD's you showed the buildings collapsed and remained in their collapse zone. None of them struck adjacent buildings. None of them fell across the roads rigth next to them. Did they?

{I expect the shift to... well they didn't want it to LOOK like a CD in 5 .... 4......3......2......}

Why and what difference would a natural collapse make to how gravity acts on a building? Please explain this.

there is no difference in how gravity would act upon a CD vs a natural collapse. None... the building falls down.

BUT in a CD, you have the building fall into its own footprint. Which wtc7 doesn't. So therefore it isn't a CD.

Unless your definition of footprint includes the roof of nearby buildings, the adjacent streets or adjacent buildings... does your definition of "footprint" include those things? If so provide a citation from any relevant text in which taht defintion is discussed.

This is like your failure with "symmetrical" and the caracas tower.... it just keeps on getting better and better.

(have you figured out how a reinforced concrete building might manage to withstand fire yet? Even though the internal steel did weaken and collapse? Way to bring that up... showing that fireproofed steel will weaken and collapse... wowsers... you make such a great bee dunker.)
(I'm sorry, I know the topic has ended already. It appears that some here aren't aware of it.) [/QUOTE]

 

[DGM]

I'm sorry, but a 9/11 bee dunker saying "it could" doesn't carry much weight.

Does it carry the same weight as an idiot saying it couldn't?

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm sorry, but a 9/11 bee dunker saying "it could" doesn't carry much weight. And especially coming from stundie-prone Triforcharity, I think I'll just have to get you to point to where this has occurred in natural collapses where it wouldn't have occurred in a CD.

Hey pot... something about a debris field the size of the moon is on the phone for you.

oH and you have another call waiting ... something about "loose particles" unable to damage anything...

There are others holding too... but I've told them you have moved. It might work.

 

[Oystein]

...
Why and what difference would a natural collapse make to how gravity acts on a building? Please explain this.
...

Excellent question!
We don't know, actually.
Actually,it is us debunkers who point out that both CD and natural collapse are mostly gravity-driven, that gravity acts on both the same way, and that therefore the size of the debris field (or whether or not the debris field is confined to a footprint, by whatever definition) is not a criterion to tell natural from intentional.

So what needs to explained is:

- Why do tens of enguneers on the petition list of AE911T mention it?
- Why is this supposed "collapse into footprint" still a major talking point of AE911T?

Remember that this thread, per its title, is about AE911T
Remember also, that "footprint" was brought into this discussion by DaveThomas who first pointed out that the footprint argument mislead several handfuls of engineers on their list.

Their argument goes like this:
Premise 1: WTC7 fell into its own footprint
Premise 2: Buildings can only fall into their footprint via CD
Conclusion: WTC7 was a CD.

We now know that both Premises are wrong, and you, ergo, have admitted as much.


ergo, can you explain now why AE911T, and many of its supporters, make this "freefall, therefore CD" argument, when you know that
- WTC7 didn't fall into its footprint
- footprint isn't affected by natural or artificial collapse initiation

 

[carlitos]

And, hey, on a pool table, have you ever wondered why the object ball sometimes goes sideways when the cue ball hits it? Explosives. That's the reason. People are using explosives to cheat at pool. Happens all the time.

If only someone had taken the trouble, back in the 17th century, to figure out some rules for working this stuff out.

Dave

Dave Thomas from NMSR has a nice video that illustrates some of the simple forces involved. He has posted it directly in response to ergo before. ergo's just trolling though, now that he already bee dunked the ae911truth claims about 'controlled demolition.'

 

[triforcharity]

I'm sorry, but a 9/11 bee dunker saying "it could" doesn't carry much weight. And especially coming from stundie-prone Triforcharity, I think I'll just have to get you to point to where this has occurred in natural collapses where it wouldn't have occurred in a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI

Building collapse into other building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo

Building collapses from fire.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...klyn_building_collapse_are_left_homeless.html

Here, a building collapses, and leaves the neighboring building unsafe for human occupancy.

I think i'll go with the facts Ergo.



Stundie-prone? Citation needed.

You seem to have a few though.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6710569&postcount=172

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6538164&postcount=70

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6512191&postcount=5

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6512501&postcount=6

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6511162&postcount=4
(This gem got into the Finals. Even got 16% of the votes)

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Ergo is Not Worth the Trouble

Fun and humorous as it may be to watch ergo move the goalposts while throwing out taunts, LOLs, and cheesy graphics, I personally see no further need to feed this particular troll.

Arguing with ergo is pointless. He/she/it has an adamantium shell protecting its brain from any facts that might conflict with its beliefs.

Here's an example:

Waaaaaay back in post 174, I said

The Fiterman Hall building was damaged by WTC7's collapse.

Then in post 180, ergo replied

That's fine, but where is it confirmed that this debris came from WTC7?

So, in post 186, I answered

For example, here (Fiterman Hall) and here (Verizon building).

I'm certainly not the only one trying to point these things out to ergo. Several others have again and again. (Those are a sample, certainly not an exhaustive list.)

But it's all in vain. Here comes ergo, in post 271, saying

What indeed did hit Fiterman Hall?

So, what's the point with arguing? ergo will not respond to reason, or facts, or data, it simply ignores detailed and substantive responses to its demands for information, moves the goalposts, LOLs, calls the kettle black, calls us beedunkers, and then does it again.

It doesn't really bother me any more. I know it's annoying to see someone who can't even grasp (or admit?) the simplest and most basic of facts, and it bugs to see such nonsense displayed in public, but in the end, ergo is just an anonymous irritant whose dodges, LOLs, and calling "beedunker" do absolutely nothing to support the notion that 9/11 was an "inside job."

I think arguing with ergo should be added to the mythical Labors of Hercules. Its torrents of output certainly share something in common with the contents of the Augean stables.

 

[ergo]

This is an interesting post from Oystein:

Excellent question!
We don't know, actually.

Heh.

Actually,it is us debunkers who point out that both CD and natural collapse are mostly gravity-driven,

"Mostly"? You're not sure? And, sorry to inform you, but most people understand that buildings falling down would be due to gravity. This may be a new revelation for bee dunkers, but it isn't for the rest of the world.

This, however:

that gravity acts on both the same way,

is most definitely a bee dunker claim. Real debunkers don't make this claim, because it's not only silly, but false.

and that therefore the size of the debris field (or whether or not the debris field is confined to a footprint, by whatever definition) is not a criterion to tell natural from intentional.

Saved for posterity.

Their argument goes like this:
Premise 1: WTC7 fell into its own footprint
Premise 2: Buildings can only fall into their footprint via CD
Conclusion: WTC7 was a CD.

Your logic here is riddled with flaws. Here is the correct version:

Premise 1: WTC7 fell into its own footprint
Premise 2: Buildings don't typically fall, as a whole, into their footprints, and certainly not from fire, unless they've been CDed.
Premise 3: see other observations cited...

Conclusion: For this and the other reasons cited, WTC7 resembles a CD collapse.

Hope that helps

 

[ergo]

I think i'll go with the facts Ergo.

If only you could find some...

 

[twinstead]

Your logic here is riddled with flaws. Here is the correct version:

Premise 1: WTC7 fell into its own footprint
Premise 2: Buildings don't typically fall, as a whole, into their footprints, and certainly not from fire, unless they've been CDed.
Premise 3: see other observations cited...

1. False
2. False
3. Take a cue from the world's engineering and structural engineering communities.

Conclusion: You don't know what you are talking about

 

[triforcharity]

If only you could find some...

I posted a bunch of facts. Do you need some help? Here is my post in full.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI

Building collapse into other building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo

Building collapses from fire.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/..._homeless.html

Here, a building collapses, and leaves the neighboring building unsafe for human occupancy.

I think i'll go with the facts Ergo.



Stundie-prone? Citation needed.

You seem to have a few though.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=172

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...4&postcount=70

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...91&postcount=5

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...01&postcount=6

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...62&postcount=4
(This gem got into the Finals. Even got 16% of the votes)

Now, you claimed I was "Stundie-prone", but yet, you had 5 nominations in 2 months. Now, if you define "prone" as something else, that may have an effect on your claim.

Kinda like your definition of footprint.

 

[ergo]

I posted a bunch of facts. Do you need some help? Here is my post in full.

You posted some youtubes of buildings collapsing, none of which prove any point that was being discussed.

Now, you claimed I was "Stundie-prone", but yet, you had 5 nominations in 2 months. Now, if you define "prone" as something else, that may have an effect on your claim.

Two of your more profound stundies have already been cited in this thread.

There have been several others. I don't keep track, but maybe I should. One of them begins along the lines of "where there's smoke there's...." in which you demonstrate your utter ignorance, as a supposed instructor of fire science, that smoke means incomplete combustion.

Your statements of profound, stunning, incredibility are becoming legion.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There have been several others. I don't keep track, but maybe I should. One of them begins along the lines of "where there's smoke there's...." in which you demonstrate your utter ignorance, as a supposed instructor of fire science, that smoke means incomplete combustion.

Actually you're dead wrong Ergo!

You forget that the smoke was blowing in a southern direction, that office equipment was burning inside the Towers & it was heating up the steel to a point where it wasn't structurally sound.

Incomplete combustion is just another lame ass Truther excuse for a smouldering fire. You do know what a smouldering fire is, don't you? What happens to a smouldering fire once oxygen hits it? Do you know or don't you?!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Smoke = incomplete/inefficient combustion =/= no fire

 

[TruthersLie]

You posted some youtubes of buildings collapsing, none of which prove any point that was being discussed.



Two of your more profound stundies have already been cited in this thread.

There have been several others. I don't keep track, but maybe I should. One of them begins along the lines of "where there's smoke there's...." in which you demonstrate your utter ignorance, as a supposed instructor of fire science, that smoke means incomplete combustion.

Your statements of profound, stunning, incredibility are becoming legion.

blah blah blah... handwaving noted.

Hey ergo... why have you run so fast, so far from the caracas fire that you brought up? What? I can't hear you.

hmmm... it seems rather funny.

oh well... I'll just go back to kicking you for the "loose particles," the inability to understand center of mass, the inability to do a free body diagram and the whole HOST of other errors.

 

[TruthersLie]

That's fine, but where is it confirmed that this debris came from WTC7?

I love looking through stundies ergos past posts... they are comedic gold.

Hey ergo.

quick question for you (since you won't answer about getting schooled (again) about the caracas tower).

Where is fiterman hall in this picture?

That would be the building with WTC7 BETWEEN it and the collapsing tower.

Are you saying that debris from one of the twin towers flew over wtc7 and managed to strike fitterman hall on the roof? I swear you twoofs jump up and down saying there was very little debris that even got as far as wtc7... let alone ANY that got over it.

is that what you are trying to weasel to mean?

 

[TJM]

That's fine, but where is it confirmed that this debris came from WTC7?



Your argument is idiotic. Maybe it wasn't a neat and tidy collapse. So what. They couldn't exactly have a professional demolition going on, could they? It was still largely a straight-down collapse into its footprint. If you dispute this, please provide some video evidence that it wasn't.

I wasn't aware Fitterman Hall and Barclay Street were in WTC 7's footprint. That being the case, they had it coming then.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/wtc7-1.jpg[/qimg]

I wasn't aware Fitterman Hall and Barclay Street were in WTC 7's footprint. That being the case, they had it coming then.

notice also that there is no mound of debris either.....

 

[A W Smith]

If it didn't fall straight down, how did it fall? Sideways?

You aren't very good at this are you kid? The logical fallacy you are weakly attempting to structure your argument over is called the fallacy of the excluded middle or false choice fallacy, Please do better.