• 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

Bump for stundieErgo. I fully expect him to dodge it or run from it... Like normal.


TruthersLie said:
since you noted the perimeter made of reinforced concrete... would you care to answer this rather (stupid) pointless question?

Why didn't global collapse occur? Hmmmm?

It might have something to do with the fact this building was a steel reinforced with concrete building unlike the twin towers or wtc7.

Gee... 5 minutes of research...
Click to expand...

Have you figured out center of mass yet?
how about "footprint?"

Still waiting for those citations.
 
ergo said:
How would you know what was structural or not? Would there be steel members that aren't structural? :)
Click to expand...

Because it says "Fireproofing and masonry partitions "

and " It appears that all of the damaged concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls acting as fireproofing, which were identified in the 1991 Structural Integrity Inspection report, were repaired;"

and

"and concrete or masonry encasement covering structural steel members " (this designates that the STEEL is structural)

and
"Concrete fireproofing for covering the steel floor framing was examined for delaminations and underlying corrosion."

and
"p. 47 - In the express elevator shafts, beams framing in the north-south direction were typically encased in concrete. Steel in the other direction consisted of built-up welded box girders and columns with sprayedon fireproofing."

and

"Steel beams supporting the elevator door saddles were encased in concrete, except for a few beams that were found to be partially encased (for example, in one case, concrete was missing from the bottom flange of one of the steel beams). The report states that the fireproofing should be replaced in these cases."

This to me says that these concrete references were not structural.
 
Oystein said:
You were asked a question that requires an answer of "yes" or "no", or some equivalent of "yes" or "no".
The reply (not answer) you gave, and referred ne to, was:


Please point out the "yes", the "no", or the equivalent!
I take note that
  • "I'm helping you with your own question." is not an answer
  • "See:" is not an answer (and neither is tri's post that you quoted there)
  • "So, Trifor, did the WTC7 collapse into its own footprint or not?" is not an answer


So please muster the courtesy and honesty to answer the follwoing simple question with a simple "yes" or a simple "no":
Is there any defintion of the word "footprint" used in common demolition industry parlance, or indeed used commonly by anyone at all that includes the roofs and faces of adjacent buildings?​
Just type two or three letters, and spare yourself and us the wasted effort of writing and reading more than 3 letters to formulate yet another embarrassing dodge. It is getting old.
Click to expand...

Bumped for ergo who is still dodging a simple yes/no question
 
1) Because it bugs you.

2) Because you can easily make your point without getting into this habitual power struggle trying to make me say something you want to hear.

3) Because my initial posts in this thread already clearly outlined what my position on demolition footprints vis a vis the Twin Towers and WTC7 is, and therefore

4) Because I've already answered it.
 
ergo said:
Here's another discussion on the footprint argument which I just found in the same thread referenced above, where trifor made one of his many stundie assertions.
Click to expand...

There is no "yes" and no "no" in that reply.

You dodge again.

Answer the question please: Is there any defintion of the word "footprint" used in common demolition industry parlance, or indeed used commonly by anyone at all that includes the roofs and faces of adjacent buildings?

Yes or no, ergo?
 
ergo said:
...
3) Because my initial posts in this thread already clearly outlined what my position on demolition footprints vis a vis the Twin Towers and WTC7 is, and therefore
Click to expand...

You have not stated yet if your position on "demolition footprints" includes the possibility of it including the roofs and faces of adjacent buildings.

ergo said:
4) Because I've already answered it.
Click to expand...

This is a lie.
 
Well, I guess we can see that that was a highly important, highly urgent bee dunker point... :rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
No, you just don't understand it. My answer to your question is no.
Click to expand...

Let me get this clear: You are saying that no, the demolition footprint of a building can not include the faces and roofs of adjacent buildings?

However, in your linked post, you make the following claim:

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

ergo, do you know that WTC7 in fact dropped onto the roof of an ajacent building, Fiterman Hall, and damaged it so badly that it had to be torn down?
Do you realize and concede now that your claim "Building 7 does indeed drop ... into its own footprint" is plain wrong?

(These are two yes/no question. You know the routine by now: Answer both with either a "yes", or a "no". You may adorne your reply with explanations, but again, without an explicit "yes" or "no", your reply will not suffice and I will come back to you).
 
ergo said:
No, you just don't understand it. My answer to your question is no.
Click to expand...

Not so fast. On that post, you said
...Building 7 does indeed drop like a controlled demolition, an implosion, into its own footprint.
Click to expand...

But, as I showed previously, WTC7 clobbered rooftops and facades of adjacent buildings as it collapsed.

But, the question you've finally answered NO is "whether or not 'demolition footprints' includes the roofs and faces of adjacent buildings."


So you're saying both that WTC7 fell into its own footprint, and that demolition footprints do not include the roofs and faces of adjacent buildings.

That makes you WRONG.

Verizon_building_damage_sm.jpg

Damage to the Verizon Building

Fiterman_hall_damage_small.jpg

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

Ergo,this is why no one believes you.

Because you don't see or acknowledge the huge holes in your arguments.

Because you try to maintain mutually contradictory positions.

Congrats, you're an exemplary Truther.
 
Bump for Stundie, I mean Ergo.

are you going to come back and tell us why the Caracas tower didn't collapse from the fire?

Are you going to own up to the fact that unlike the twin towers in NYC on 9/11, it was built from the ground up as a steel and reinforced concrete building?

are you going to notice that you can't compare apples to oranges? Or are you going to just run away?
 
ergo said:
Heh. ;)
Click to expand...

colour-safe-run-away.jpg

or maybe it is this
python_run_away_small.jpg


Have you figured that out yet?

how about center of mass?

How does a collection of "loose particles" crush that car?
How does a collection of "loose particles" create a tsunami and kill hundreds of thousands? It is only "loose particles" right?
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Not so fast. On that post, you said


But, as I showed previously, WTC7 clobbered rooftops and facades of adjacent buildings as it collapsed.
Click to expand...

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

But, the question you've finally answered NO is "whether or not 'demolition footprints' includes the roofs and faces of adjacent buildings."

So you're saying both that WTC7 fell into its own footprint, and that demolition footprints do not include the roofs and faces of adjacent buildings.

That makes you WRONG.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom