• 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

TruthersLie said:
....

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?
Click to expand...

I notice bee dunkers often post large, obnoxious graphics when they want to deflect attention from other posts.

Hey, Truthorlies, have you explained the relevance of center of mass for particulate matter in motion yet???
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

This semantic rambling aside, you folks have still yet to show this layman that it was impossible for the building to fall the way it did if the NIST report is correct.

But, of course it's not ME you have to convince. It's all those experts that apparently haven't heard of WTC7 yet so haven't come out in support of the truth movement. According to you, this is such a no brainer that the ONLY explanation for you to be in such an abject minority on this issue is that the world's engineering community either has never heard of WTC7, or simply hasn't read the NIST report.

It's been almost 10 years. You need to get cracking.
 
Last edited:
This is for you Ergo.

Briggsstrati.jpg
 
ergo said:
That's fine, but where is it confirmed that this debris came from WTC7?
Click to expand...

You can easily verify it in a few seconds with this tool, which you recommend others to use without apparently knowing how to employ it for yourself.

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

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.
Click to expand...

Fine. You have a very skewed definition of "straight down."



"idiotic"? You are projecting. And, trying to weasel out of the ridiculously large holes you've dug for yourself.

Also, why haven't you answered question 1 of the multiple choice test made just for you, ergo? Too busy dodging other questions, perhaps?

Only one answer is correct - here's a chance for you to show us that your statement that "I have learned some elementary physics as well" is true.

Gee, you've got a 1 in 6 chance of getting it right just by guessing!

So go ahead and impress us with your physics knowledge. If you had been paying attention, the answer would have been obvious.
 
ergo said:
Hey, Truthorlies, have you explained the relevance of center of mass for particulate matter in motion yet???
Click to expand...

Center of Mass for minute particles suspended in air? Being suspended in air, would they not be in constant motion? Unless of course you confined them in a jar.
 
ergo said:
I notice bee dunkers often post large, obnoxious graphics when they want to deflect attention from other posts.
Click to expand...

You mean Jammonius was a "bee dunker". I would have never guessed.:)
 
Reading this has given me a brain tumor.

Why is it the twoofers refuse to answer direct questions? Do any of them ever conduct themselves in a calm civil manner? Why do they profess to be so much smarter but come across as Elementary school dropouts?

Ergo you may think you are so smart and funny but you actually debunked, or bee dunked, yourself. Actually every single one of the CTers here seems to debunk themselves ... and are completely oblivious to it. It really is astounding.
 
ergo said:
I notice bee dunkers often post large, obnoxious graphics when they want to deflect attention from other posts.
Click to expand...

I notice truthers often harp on inconsequential details like use of graphics when they want to avoid answering the questions in the post.

Questions such as:

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?
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
That's fine, but where is it confirmed that this debris came from WTC7?
Click to expand...
shift shift shift them goal posts.

Can you tell us why we KNOW the debris came from wtc7?

(hint, it is as easy to see as why we know the caracas towers didn't collapse)

Give it the ole college try...

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.
Click to expand...

Now it has shifted from a straight down... to a "largely" straight down... what other direction would it expect it to go? sideways?

How does a building collapse into "its footprint" and manage to strike 3 adjacent buildings, one on the freaking roof?

(I expect a dodge yet again)
 
ergo said:
I notice bee dunkers often post large, obnoxious graphics when they want to deflect attention from other posts.
Click to expand...
Like your wonderful posts which include the inability to figure out what center of mass is?
Or your statement that a debris field the size of the moon wouldn't have crushed down the towers just so long as it was "loose particles?"

Or your inability to see how the construction of the caracas tower was vastly different (hint... it included steel reinforced by concrete)

YOu mean those posts?

Or do you mean when I am handing you your ass... yet again?

Hey, Truthorlies, have you explained the relevance of center of mass for particulate matter in motion yet???
Click to expand...

Just as soon as you tell me why the car was crushed, how an avalanche works, how a tsunami can destroy an island... after all... those are all made up of just "loose particles." I'm sure you can answer the question. But all I see is you still dodging.
 
fess said:
Center of Mass for minute particles suspended in air? Being suspended in air, would they not be in constant motion? Unless of course you confined them in a jar.
Click to expand...



Yes, they'd be in constant motion, but you could still define a center of mass for them, so long as you could give a reasonable approximation of their individual mass, and spatial distribution. It would likely be statistically defined, due to the constant motion, like in a gas, but it would still be pretty accurate.
 
Oystein said:
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, 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).
Click to expand...



Bumped for ergo, who continues to evade simple yes/no questions.
 
ergo said:
...It was still largely a straight-down collapse into its footprint...
Click to expand...

This is a sneaky way of saying "It was not a straight-down collapse into its footprint". Correct?

Just like saying "I almost passed the exam" is a sneaky way of saying "I failed the exam."


Agreed, ergo?


So what again is the significance of WTC7 really not falling into its own footprint?
And oh, would that be the "building footprint" or the "demolition footprint" that it did not fall into?
 
So, the canard "it's suspicious because it fell into its own footprint" is just a little bit dishonest. Truthers should now change that to "it's suspicious because it largely fell into its own footprint" which of course is idiotic and means nothing. Since it didn't fall into its own footprint, how much inside its own footprint did it have to fall to become suspicious compared to what fell outside?

Or something like that
 
I think the "demolition footprint" argument goes like this:

The term "demolition footprint" refers to the area that an intentionally demolished building is intended to fall into. If we assume that WTC7 was intentionally demolished and that the demolition went entirely according to plan, then by definition it fell into its own demolition footprint. Since, also by definition, only intentionally demolished buildings fall into their own demolition footprints, we can conclude from the fact that WTC7 fell into its own demolition footprint that it was intentionally demolished.

Does that sum up your position on demolition footprints, ergo?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom