• 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

Hm. I guess Trifor really didn't have a point after all... Why does this not surprise me?
 
ergo said:
I've answered both your questions. I'm waiting for your punchline.

While I wait, I'll re-ask my question from above: Do you think demolition experts try to get buildings to fall into their own footprints? Or do they try to get them to topple over or some such other thing? What do you think the term controlled demolition means?
Click to expand...

Ergo,

Explain to everyone here why noone from around WTC7 was deafened by the alleged "explosives" going off?

Why isn't there confirmation that "explosives" were used to bring down WTC7?

Why do you think that WTC7 fell in it's own "footprint" ,when photographic evidence shows that it didn't?

Don't dodge the questions!
 
dafydd said:
What are you? Unemployed?
Click to expand...

Architect said:
And yet, strangely, when it was explained to you that the mods had seen my bona-fides and could confirm my status, you declined to do so. Likewise one other poster here has been in my office, and several of the Mancunians are familiar with my work. Hmmm.

Let the lurkers draw their own conclusion about who is scared of facts.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, Dafydd, he always refused to ask the mods. Inferred they weren't reliable.

There are probably enough details that I've given away over the years for him to piece together who I am. But we all know what his approach is to "research"!
 
ergo said:
It's like the way bee dunkers chronically misrepresent claims of "free fall" for the towers when, in fact, the claim is and has always been "near" or "within seconds of" free fall. It's as if you don't understand what's being said.
Click to expand...

Some stupid truthers said it was faster than freefall. You're not one of them are you? Not many support that moron Bjorkman.
 
Architect said:
The funny thing is, Dafydd, he always refused to ask the mods. Inferred they weren't reliable.

There are probably enough details that I've given away over the years for him to piece together who I am. But we all know what his approach is to "research"!
Click to expand...
If he was really interested in the truth it wouldn't matter what you do for a living. Your posts speak for themselves. He can't debate the facts so he has to attack the person.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I actually did link to some references in another thread. I can't be bothered to look them up. Demolitioners use the term footprint, and it obviously is not the same thing as a design footprint.

Do some bee-googling. Here are some terms: Demolition. Footprint.

I think it's pretty easy to find.
Click to expand...

1. I found the original reference.
2. I posted the link
3. It shows up in 1 (ONE) document, and it titled demolitions footprint. The same document (It was in the NIST report) discusses the architectural footprint in depth. When they discuss the architectural footprint, they call it the footprint. When they discuss the collapse, they call it the collapse fooptrint. Rather interesting which one is the one used.
4. if you put in architecture and footprint, you get a vastly different defintion
if you put in entineering and footprint you get a vastly different defitinion.

Your inability to find any support (besides the ONE I found) does not bode well for your wonderful research skills.

Keep on trying.

Feel free. I'll wait for them.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
...Do you think demolition experts try to get buildings to fall into their own footprints? Or do they try to get them to topple over or some such other thing? What do you think the term controlled demolition means?
Click to expand...

Hmm, let's see... I'm guessing your definition of "footprint" includes "the buildings in the area across multi-lane avenues or streets."

Verizon_building_damage_sm.jpg


Fiterman_hall_damage_small.jpg

(Source)
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
No, it's the Truth Movement. Not everyone reads the latest official talking points, some repeat old Griffin or Gage canards ad nauseum.

Another example, from the recently-defunct "WeAreChangeAtlanta.com":

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/atlanta.jpg[/qimg]

(See this article for a relatively recent reference to WACA).
Click to expand...

"All 3 Towers Collapsed at Free Fall Accelerations Through The Path of Greatest Resistence"

Path of greatest resistence, huh? Wouldn't that prove that free fall wasn't there if the resistence is great?!

Should they have said:

"All 3 Towers Collapsed at Free Fall Accelerations Through The Path of Least Resistence"

Truthers, you can't depend on them!
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I've answered both your questions. I'm waiting for your punchline.
Click to expand...

Where? It's a yes or no question. Do CD footprints usually contain other buildings? Yes or no. Simple answer.

ergo said:
While I wait, I'll re-ask my question from above: Do you think demolition experts try to get buildings to fall into their own footprints? Or do they try to get them to topple over or some such other thing? What do you think the term controlled demolition means?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, yes, they do.

Sometimes they do make them topple over, it depends. Recently, the FPL plant in Cape Canaveral had their old smokestacks CD'd, and it toppled into the river.

Controlled, means that they make the building do what they want it to do. Usually they don't make them hit other buildings though. And they usually don't spread their contents over many acres.
 
phatred said:
1. I know sometimes highly intelligent people believe in weird things, but has anyone outside of the ae911 actually check up on the 1400 architects listed on the site? I have a hard time believing that many accredited people believe 9/11 was a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

The licensed US ones are legit but most, as others have pointed out, are outside their area of specialty. IIRC less than 20 are structural engineers a couple of whose area of specialty is deep sea platforms. IIRC only 1 or 2 indicated experience with tall buildings in their bios.

Keep in mind they represent about 1 in 1000 US architects and engineers and an even lower proportion of such professionals from other countries.
 
ergo said:
I actually did link to some references in another thread. I can't be bothered to look them up. Demolitioners use the term footprint, and it obviously is not the same thing as a design footprint.

Do some bee-googling. Here are some terms: Demolition. Footprint.

I think it's pretty easy to find.
Click to expand...

In other words, like most truthers, ergo is too lazy to provide any evidence to support any of his claims.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
No, it's the Truth Movement. Not everyone reads the latest official talking points, some repeat old Griffin or Gage canards ad nauseum.

Another example, from the recently-defunct "WeAreChangeAtlanta.com":

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/atlanta.jpg[/qimg]

(See this article for a relatively recent reference to WACA).
Click to expand...

The Zogby poll assumes people don't change their mind about anything. On the same basis most Americans still want to go to war with Germany.

Which is fine by me!
 
ergo said:
I actually did link to some references in another thread. I can't be bothered to look them up. Demolitioners use the term footprint, and it obviously is not the same thing as a design footprint.

Do some bee-googling. Here are some terms: Demolition. Footprint.

I think it's pretty easy to find.
Click to expand...

I can help!

In Truth terminology the demolition footprint is the footprint of the demolition, rather than the footprint of the building being demolished. It confuses many people but when you understand the Truth, it makes sense.

So using the latest 337 ae911truth slide as a reference for Truth, this means slightly different things for different buildings, and the Truth is slightly different, depending on what point we wish to emphasize

WTC 7
Slide 49 " Straight down vertical collapse"
Slide 54 " collapse straight down, rapidly and symetrically"
Slide 57 " through the path of greatest resistance"

WTC 1 & 2
Slide 221 " Another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire-ball that blew out more debris"
Slide 236 " Debris field is 1200ft in diameter, everything is blown outside the building footprint"
Slide 250 " the building mass is being blown outside"
Slide 251 "massive steel assemblies hurled 500 ft"
Slide 267 "where are the missing pancakes?"
Slide 307 "Why would all 110 stories drop straight to the ground in 10 seconds - pulverizing the contents"
Slide 308 - "the 110 story Twin Towers fell upon itself at nearly free fall speed"
Slide 309 - "all three collapses were very uniform in nature - this is unnatural"

It's pretty convincing really as long as we don't put the slides too close together.
 
triforcharity said:
Controlled, means that they make the building do what they want it to do. Usually they don't make them hit other buildings though. And they usually don't spread their contents over many acres.
Click to expand...



And that means, if they meant to hit the other buildings, it was a "controlled demolition", wasn't it?



I think I'm supposed to say "Bee Dunker" at some point here.
 
Telltale Tom said:
I can help!

In Truth terminology the demolition footprint is the footprint of the demolition, rather than the footprint of the building being demolished. It confuses many people but when you understand the Truth, it makes sense.

So using the latest 337 ae911truth slide as a reference for Truth, this means slightly different things for different buildings, and the Truth is slightly different, depending on what point we wish to emphasize

WTC 7
Slide 49 " Straight down vertical collapse"
Slide 54 " collapse straight down, rapidly and symetrically"
Slide 57 " through the path of greatest resistance"

WTC 1 & 2
Slide 221 " Another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire-ball that blew out more debris"
Slide 236 " Debris field is 1200ft in diameter, everything is blown outside the building footprint"
Slide 250 " the building mass is being blown outside"
Slide 251 "massive steel assemblies hurled 500 ft"
Slide 267 "where are the missing pancakes?"
Slide 307 "Why would all 110 stories drop straight to the ground in 10 seconds - pulverizing the contents"
Slide 308 - "the 110 story Twin Towers fell upon itself at nearly free fall speed"
Slide 309 - "all three collapses were very uniform in nature - this is unnatural"

It's pretty convincing really as long as we don't put the slides too close together.
Click to expand...



Brilliant!


Horatius said:
full.png
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom