• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Q's about AE911T

So, anyway, is this the sum total of beedunker objections to aetruth? You don't like their use of the term "footprint"? Or you don't understand its application in demolition?
 
ergo said:
I'm helping you with your own question. See:




So, Trifor, did the WTC7 collapse into its own footprint or not?
Click to expand...

No.

Does "footprint" of any definition you choose, usually include other buildings?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
So, anyway, is this the sum total of beedunker objections to aetruth? You don't like their use of the term "footprint"? Or you don't understand its application in demolition?
Click to expand...

Of course it's not the "sum total". There are several sources of refutations of all sorts of AE911 Truth's inanity (try this one, or this one, or this one, for starters.)

We're not trying to pin you down on everything wrong with AE911Truth (that would actually take dozens of posts). No, we're just trying to pin you down on one simple thing, the definition of "FOOTPRINT", which you've been dodging and evading and squirming your way out of for the whole thread:

triforcharity said:
Does "footprint" of any definition you choose, usually include other buildings?
Click to expand...

What is it when a card player won't show his cards, yet won't fold either?

It's Ergo.
 
Just so we're clear, ergo, "LOL" is a content-free criticism, devoid of evidence, data, logic, etc.

I repeat,
No, the "joke" is that you took six paragraphs to dodge defining what a "footprint" is, with references, and yet you still act as if anyone should take you seriously.
Click to expand...

Six paragraphs, Six pages - there's never going to be a Straight Answer, is there, ergo? Just another pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? But never a reason to take you seriously...
 
ergo said:
Lol.

You guys really don't have a point, do you?
Click to expand...


They do have a point. Your dodging of a perfectly simple yes-or-no question is a desperate attempt to ensure that no one other than you notices the glaring problem with your position.

Recall that you said:

ergo said:
Whereas Building 7 does indeed drop like a controlled demolition, an implosion, into its own footprint.
Click to expand...


The reason they ask "Does "footprint" of any definition you choose, usually include other buildings?" is because, as anyone who has studied 9/11 in any depth should know, debris from WTC7 damaged several buildings around it. If, as you say, it fell into "its own footprint", then you must believe that somewhere, someone in some construction or demolition trade uses the word "footprint" in some context that supports that position.

That, or you know you're just making up crap, and are hoping not to get called out on it.

Well, so much for that last hope.

But do please continue dodging this quite simple and obvious point, as such behaviours are the single greatest evidence we have that people like you are approaching this entire discussion in an utterly dishonest and disingenuous manner.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Of course it's not the "sum total". There are several sources of refutations of all sorts of AE911 Truth's inanity (try this one, or this one, or this one, for starters.)
Click to expand...

And yet you pick some entirely inconsequential detail, a semantic nitpick, about the use of the term "footprint".

The rest of your "refutations" are just... well, they bee dunk.

You guys wouldn't be able debunk something if it took a poop right on your living room carpet. You would say something like..."it wasn't symmetrical!!"
 
ergo said:
So, anyway, is this the sum total of beedunker objections to aetruth? You don't like their use of the term "footprint"? Or you don't understand its application in demolition?
Click to expand...

No its not! They actually have lots of others, and if you look at the search function you will see them. Its really annoying isn't it?

I am pleased to see that your response to the footprint is indeed as concise, consistent and truthful as the ae911truth powerpoint presentation that I describe above.

Have a Truthful Year...
 
ergo said:
Lol.

You guys really don't have a point, do you?
Click to expand...
You support idiots who have delusions, and you can't do much to help them past repeating their failed claims and asking stupid questions. You should have taken Physics. Here you are poorly supporting AE911T armed with nonsense. Each time you quibble about footprint, you expose your anti-intellectual stand on 911.

AE911T exists to make money for Gage. Those who sign up for AE act like people who can't think for themselves, with the dumbest donating money to his fraudulent cause. Based on your posting record you made the correct decision, supporting a movement with a perfect record of failure, over 9 years with no end in sight.

Here is some of the fraud you support!

atlanta.jpg

Why do you support lies. Why is AE911T a failed movement? AE911T bee-dunk themselves, their claims are too stupid to be believed by rational people.
 
People just don't understand us at ae911truth. As ergo says, we use lots of general phrases to describe what happened, and we feel it is better to get our point across than to be precise. To use ergo's words, these are " semantics of convenience", and you need to understand the context in which we say things.

  • As ergo says footprint can mean pretty much anything, and is not really important, and he nicely argues how both towers fell into their own footprint.
  • Fall straight down, can also mean straight out in the case of the walls of the WTC 1 & 2
  • Dropping into its own footprint, can mean blowing out, as above
  • Explosion can mean silent
  • Implosion can mean explosion
  • freefall accelleration, means nearly freefall acceleration which sometimes means 2/3rd's freefall acceleration, which is pretty close to half freefall if that helps an argument... Oh I guess it really is closer to half..oops
  • Engineer means anybody from anywhere with a degree in anything engineerigish or who works in an office of someone with an engineeringly type name

It is so difficult being precise all the time and because we have Truth on our side we can rely on most of our contributors to come to the right conclusion.

It's only forums like this that are interested in both sides of the argument. Our readers certainly aren't.

May truth be with you
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
So, anyway, is this the sum total of beedunker objections to aetruth? You don't like their use of the term "footprint"? Or you don't understand its application in demolition?
Click to expand...

Then provide a citation which shows it is used in the demolitons industry. I have asked you for it repeatedly.

Citation please.

In engineering and architecture the footprint is the base of the building. When you talk about buildings and their footprints it is very clear.

Unfortunately either a. truthers don't understand basic terminology or b. they are lying.

Provide a citation from any demolitions industry to support your claim.

I'll wait for it.
 
ergo said:
And yet you pick some entirely inconsequential detail, a semantic nitpick, about the use of the term "footprint".

The rest of your "refutations" are just... well, they bee dunk.

You guys wouldn't be able debunk something if it took a poop right on your living room carpet. You would say something like..."it wasn't symmetrical!!"
Click to expand...

Not if it was shaped like the wtc7 collapse. (which wasn't symmetrical) and didn't fall into it's footprint (unless I stepped in it).

You need to look up those words you keep on using wrong, and correct your vocabulary.
 
Fly Poster said:
Originally Posted by phatred
2. I am basically clueless on physics, does anyone have a really dumbed down version of what Chandler is suggesting happened physics-wise and why it is wrong and how he could've went wrong?
Click to expand...
This should help you out, I think Alienentity has some great stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8yUR-sM4lU&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Click to expand...

Great videos!

If phatred's question is not about WTC7, but regards the Twin Towers, and Chandler's oft-quoted measurement of WTC1's "2/3 g acceleration", I've explained that this "reduced" gravitational acceleration is explained by a progressive collapse - no explosives are needed!
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
If phatred's question is not about WTC7, but regards the Twin Towers, and Chandler's oft-quoted measurement of WTC1's "2/3 g acceleration", I've explained that this "reduced" gravitational acceleration is explained by a progressive collapse - no explosives are needed!
Click to expand...

... Here's why Chandler is wrong. He treats the actual process - a series of free-falls punctuated by brief but violent collisions - as if it was a smoothly continuous process.
Click to expand...


Yes, imperceptibly "brief but violent collisions" are what forced 80 and 90 intact floors of steel and concrete highrise (with furnishings, walls, mechanical equipment, massive filing systems, plumbing, 7-ton floor pans, stairwells, people etc..) to self-pulverize, at the rate of 0.15 seconds per floor, with nothing but shredded columns and miles and miles of dust to show for it at the bottom. As some point out, not even a toilet. All from gravity!

Human bodies dismembered, segmented into tiny pieces. Bones shattered into fragments less than 1 inch long, ejected laterally onto neigbouring rooftops. All from gravity.

And the fact remaining that no steel-framed highrise has ever, or since, collapsed to the ground from floor fires. Nor even from raging infernos.

This is quack science. Beedunker-level science.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Yes, imperceptibly "brief but violent collisions" are what forced 80 and 90 intact floors of steel and concrete highrise (with furnishings, walls, mechanical equipment, massive filing systems, plumbing, 7-ton floor pans, stairwells, people etc..) to self-pulverize, at the rate of 0.15 seconds per floor, with nothing but shredded columns and miles and miles of dust to show for it at the bottom. As some point out, not even a toilet. All from gravity!

Human bodies dismembered, segmented into tiny pieces. Bones shattered into fragments less than 1 inch long, ejected laterally onto neigbouring rooftops. All from gravity.

And the fact remaining that no steel-framed highrise has ever, or since, collapsed to the ground from floor fires. Nor even from raging infernos.

This is quack science. Beedunker-level science.
Click to expand...

You're still here? You expect anyone to take you seriously, when you won't even spell out what you mean by "footprint"?

Yes, all those things happened because of gravity. Do you realize that each Twin Tower possessed a gravitational potential energy of about 940 billion joules, or a quarter-kiloton of TNT equivalent? That's more energy per tower than is expended by the smaller nukes in the US arsenal.

Where'd you get "0.15 seconds per floor", BTW? My calculations (here, here) show that the initial floors took over a half-second to be crushed, while the bottom floors were being crushed in just 0.07 seconds. (Agrees with Bazant's much more detailed calculation, I might add.)

If you want ANYONE to take you seriously, why not show us your math, or a citation, for "0.15 seconds per floor"? That is, after you provide closure on what passes for ergo's definition of "FOOTPRINT."

Hint: "LOL" and "bee-dunker" are not substantive responses.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Yes, imperceptibly "brief but violent collisions" are what forced 80 and 90 intact floors of steel and concrete highrise (with furnishings, walls, mechanical equipment, massive filing systems, plumbing, 7-ton floor pans, stairwells, people etc..) to self-pulverize, at the rate of 0.15 seconds per floor, with nothing but shredded columns and miles and miles of dust to show for it at the bottom. As some point out, not even a toilet. All from gravity!
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Lots of things were recovered from GZ.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf

Here is a short listing.

"Approximately 4,000 personal photographs
$78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency
54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses"

I found a laptop, and someone else found a mailcart or a food cart of some sort.

concreteremains2.jpg


And a car.


ergo said:
Human bodies dismembered, segmented into tiny pieces. Bones shattered into fragments less than 1 inch long, ejected laterally onto neigbouring rooftops. All from gravity.
Click to expand...

Yep. Drop a 10 ton steel column on your leg, and tell me what happens. Do it repeatedly, and tell me what's left.

ergo said:
And the fact remaining that no steel-framed highrise has ever, or since, collapsed to the ground from floor fires. Nor even from raging infernos.

This is quack science. Beedunker-level science.
Click to expand...

Well, considering this is a complete strawman, I will just point out a few things wrong with it.

Damage from a 767 impact
Steel framed structure
Tube in tube design, with no concrete core
Unprotected steel
5+ acres of fire started instantly.

I mean, if you can find me another that meets this criteria, I would gladly look at it.

But, this is also a "first time in history" canard. Using that logic, it is also the first time in history that thermite was used to bring a building down.

See how that works?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom