Q's about AE911T

[ergo]

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.

The "footprint" argument is a particular bee dunker obsession, which is funny, because at least half the time bee dunkers themselves don't even know what their own argument is.

If a building falls straight down, it falls into its own footprint. Does anyone disagree with this? Whether some pieces get flung out to the side, whether the rubble spreads over the building's literal design footprint, which it will, it still falls into its own footprint. WTC7, from what we can see in videos, fell straight down. It did not fall to either side. It did not partially collapse. It fell straight down, as a whole, into its own footprint. Just like a professional demolition, but perhaps, as you suggest, not as tidy. Is that surprising to you? That some pieces were flung out? Funnily enough, it doesn't exactly help your argument!

I will agree with you, though, as I already stated several pages back, that saying that the Twin Towers "fell" into their own footprints in the same way as WTC7, or like some kind of professional implosion, may not be accurate. But I'm not sure who, besides bee dunkers, is claiming this, either.

There were so many things going on with the towers, it's hard to find any one word that describes their destruction and descent.

 

[twinstead]

There were so many things going on with the towers, it's hard to find any one word that describes their destruction and descent.

4 words: Plane impacts and fires

Everybody except your tiny cult understands this.

 

[ergo]

4 words: Plane impacts and fires

Lol.

 

[GlennB]

WTC7, from what we can see in videos, fell straight down. It did not fall to either side.

No it didn't.

This is 9/11 CT 101, and if you can't get this right there's little hope you'll get anything right.

 

[twinstead]

Lol.

No LOL about it.

Anything else is fodder for engineers and scientists to debate, but all that is important to me is that the general consensus among experts is that the buildings collapsed because fully-laden jet liners crashed into WTC1 and 2, and debris from their collapse damaged and started huge fires in WTC7. this led to all three of their subsequent collapses.

As soon as the general consensus among experts becomes that something else had to come into play, then you can LOL all you want.

 

[TruthersLie]

The "footprint" argument is a particular bee dunker obsession, which is funny, because at least half the time bee dunkers themselves don't even know what their own argument is.

Oh no Ergo. The argument is that you are using professional terminology and using it WRONG.

Since you folks are the ones trying to use argument from authority (ae911twoof), it shows just how incompetent your side is that you use the terminology wrong.

If a building falls straight down, it falls into its own footprint. Does anyone disagree with this?

Somewhat.
If a building collapses into its own footprint, then it will not strike adjacent buildings. That is the issue, which goes back to the point above.

Whether some pieces get flung out to the side, whether the rubble spreads over the building's literal design footprint, which it will,

says who?

In CD, buildings are usually brought down completely and utterly within their own footprints.

In fact if a building CD goes outside its footprint, the CD company is open to a HUGE lawsuit. That is why they take it soooooo seriously.

The problem again goes to the first point. Truthers LIE by trying to use proper terminology and twist it to fit BS claims. So the claim that the building collapsed into its own footprint (which it didn't) makes it seem like what happens in a CD (where a building will collapse into its own footprint.)

So either you guys are lying, incompetent or inept. Which one is it?

it still falls into its own footprint. WTC7, from what we can see in videos, fell straight down.

No it didn't. It tilted on the way down. And from what we can see in the videos of 2 sides it is not definitive enough to make that claim. Much like the BS symmetrical argument.

It did not fall to either side. It did not partially collapse. It fell straight down, as a whole, into its own footprint.

oh here comes the it looked like a CD which collapses into its own footprint so there fore it must be... coming in 5.....4.....3.....2....

Just like a professional demolition, but perhaps, as you suggest, not as tidy.

Wow... can I collect randi's million for that? didn't think so.

We just covered why and how it didn't collapse into its "own footprint." Unless the "footprint" includes the adjacent buildings and the roof of one.

Is that surprising to you? That some pieces were flung out? Funnily enough, it doesn't exactly help your argument!

why would pieces be flung out? They aren't in traditional CD's. In fact if they are the CD company is out of business (because they have been sued into bankruptcy)

And how exactly were these pieces flung out? by a super duper super sekret silent explosive? really?

There were so many things going on with the towers, it's hard to find any one word that describes their destruction and descent.

oh there are plenty of simple terms... collapse, catastrophic failures, tragedy. All of them are accepted by the vast majority of professional engineers in the world.

Have you figured out what crushed the car yet?

Or have you figured out why the caracas tower didn't collapse?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

The "footprint" argument is a particular bee dunker obsession, which is funny, because at least half the time bee dunkers themselves don't even know what their own argument is.
...
I will agree with you, though, as I already stated several pages back, that saying that the Twin Towers "fell" into their own footprints in the same way as WTC7, or like some kind of professional implosion, may not be accurate. But I'm not sure who, besides bee dunkers, is claiming this, either.

There were so many things going on with the towers, it's hard to find any one word that describes their destruction and descent.

My, you've a short little attention span, don't you? Way back on page 1 of this thread, I showed that tens of AE911truth's celebrated "Engineers and Engineering Professionals" are claiming exactly that (that the Twin Towers "fell" into their own footprints in the same way as WTC7).

So, no, it's not just "beedunkers," but the very engineers who are supposed to be the "scientific" side of 9/11 truth.

Now, why haven't you answered the very simple physics multiple choice question you've been dodging?

I say that you won't answer because you know you will fail, and will thus disprove your assertion that "I have learned some elementary physics as well."

 

[newton3376]

I will agree with you, though, as I already stated several pages back, that saying that the Twin Towers "fell" into their own footprints in the same way as WTC7, or like some kind of professional implosion, may not be accurate. But I'm not sure who, besides bee dunkers, is claiming this, either.

You aren't "sure"?

Really? Where have you been for the last 9 years?

This might be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read....simply breathtaking.

 

[ProBonoShill]

The "footprint" argument is a particular bee dunker obsession, which is funny, because at least half the time bee dunkers themselves don't even know what their own argument is.

If a building falls straight down, it falls into its own footprint. Does anyone disagree with this? Whether some pieces get flung out to the side, whether the rubble spreads over the building's literal design footprint, which it will, it still falls into its own footprint. WTC7, from what we can see in videos, fell straight down. It did not fall to either side. It did not partially collapse. It fell straight down, as a whole, into its own footprint. Just like a professional demolition, but perhaps, as you suggest, not as tidy. Is that surprising to you? That some pieces were flung out? Funnily enough, it doesn't exactly help your argument!

I will agree with you, though, as I already stated several pages back, that saying that the Twin Towers "fell" into their own footprints in the same way as WTC7, or like some kind of professional implosion, may not be accurate. But I'm not sure who, besides bee dunkers, is claiming this, either.

There were so many things going on with the towers, it's hard to find any one word that describes their destruction and descent.

Just admit it Ergo, you've done zero research on what a controlled demolition entails.

Your entire post screams ignorance of the subject.

I'm not sure why you continue to embarrass yourself on the Internet, but keep it up, I enjoy the comedic value of your posts.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The "footprint" argument is a particular bee dunker obsession, which is funny, because at least half the time bee dunkers themselves don't even know what their own argument is.

We'll now see a demonstration of exactly how well ergo knows what his own argument is.

If a building falls straight down, it falls into its own footprint. Does anyone disagree with this? Whether some pieces get flung out to the side, whether the rubble spreads over the building's literal design footprint, which it will, it still falls into its own footprint.

So, even if some of a building doesn't fall into its own footprint, the building falls into its own footprint. We won't, of course, be graced with any kind of quantitative analysis of how much has to fall into the footprint, because at the moment ergo can claim that a building fell into its own footprint if any of it landed in the footprint, so long as it can be described as falling "straight down".

WTC7, from what we can see in videos, fell straight down. It did not fall to either side. It did not partially collapse. It fell straight down, as a whole, into its own footprint.

The above is a blatant, barefaced, shameless lie. We know that WTC7 rotated southwards as it fell, and that large amounts of the building landed outside the footprint. But ergo chooses to pretend that a building that tips over as it falls is nonetheless falling "straight down". Again, we don't get a quantitative limit on how much the building has to tip over before it doesn't fall "straight down".

Just like a professional demolition, but perhaps, as you suggest, not as tidy. Is that surprising to you? That some pieces were flung out? Funnily enough, it doesn't exactly help your argument!

But the point is not that some pieces were flung out. It's that WTC7 didn't fall straight down into its own footprint; it toppled southwards and fell into an area much larger than its own footprint. Very unlike a professional demolition, really.

I will agree with you, though, as I already stated several pages back, that saying that the Twin Towers "fell" into their own footprints in the same way as WTC7, or like some kind of professional implosion, may not be accurate. But I'm not sure who, besides bee dunkers, is claiming this, either.

As Dave Thomas has pointed out repeatedly, this is a core claim of the truth movement, along with the contradictory claim that too much debris fell outside the footprint to be explained by anything other than explosives.

There were so many things going on with the towers, it's hard to find any one word that describes their destruction and descent.

So now they were too complex to understand, but it's obvious that they were controlled demolitions? Funny how so many truthers like to harp on about how obvious it was that they were controlled demolitions, then backtrack and say that the collapses were too complex for the NIST analysis to be valid - although, of course, Leslie Robertson's three pages of longhand calculations are irrefutable proof that they couldn't possibly have fallen down. It's almost as if they "don't even know what their own argument is".

Dave

 

[Gorgonian]

The issue here is that the building didn't fall largely straight down and then debris dispersed. This would not result in debris from WTC7 being on the roof of neighboring buildings. There are photos that show a substantial lean during collapse (I believe the photos are stills from video, too).

 

[triforcharity]

Gorg,

Yes, Dave Thomas has posted the video which shows very clearly the lean that 7 took. We have all posted evidence of the post office, Fitterman Hall, and the Verizon Building being severely damaged.

Ergo, disagress. How he comes to that conclusion, i'm not sure. I suspect a severe case of cranial rectal inversion.

 

[Dragon37]

The "footprint" argument is a particular bee dunker obsession, which is funny, because at least half the time bee dunkers themselves don't even know what their own argument is.

This is just an absolutely moronic statement. You, ergo, started the footprint debate in this thread and continue to push it. You are not even aware of what you are doing yourself so I have to laugh when you claim that we don't know what we are talking about.

If a building falls straight down, it falls into its own footprint. Does anyone disagree with this? Whether some pieces get flung out to the side, whether the rubble spreads over the building's literal design footprint, which it will, it still falls into its own footprint. WTC7, from what we can see in videos, fell straight down. It did not fall to either side. It did not partially collapse. It fell straight down, as a whole, into its own footprint. Just like a professional demolition, but perhaps, as you suggest, not as tidy. Is that surprising to you? That some pieces were flung out? Funnily enough, it doesn't exactly help your argument!

Interesting how you attempt to craft what seems like an intelligent argument but actually say nothing of substance. You ignore clear evidence that the building did not fall straight down. Significant portions of the building were outside of the building's footprint, be it the architectural footprint or a supposed demolition footprint. Had the building collapsed straight down it should be almost entirely, except for very small and very few pieces, inside the property it was on. By this i mean no obstructing streets, no large portions of the building damaging other building surrounding it. 7 WTC did not do this so it did not collapse straight down.

I will agree with you, though, as I already stated several pages back, that saying that the Twin Towers "fell" into their own footprints in the same way as WTC7, or like some kind of professional implosion, may not be accurate. But I'm not sure who, besides bee dunkers, is claiming this, either.

Again, it is not the people here that bring up footprints and it is quite obvious that 1 and 2 WTC did not fall into their footprints.

There were so many things going on with the towers, it's hard to find any one word that describes their destruction and descent.

ROFL! That hasn't stopped you and other toothers from bashing the failed CD story over the head.

 

[DGM]

This is just an absolutely moronic statement. You, ergo, started the footprint debate in this thread and continue to push it. You are not even aware of what you are doing yourself so I have to laugh when you claim that we don't know what we are talking about.

Well yeah but, he called you a "bee dunker" so................there.

 

[Dragon37]

Well yeah but, he called you a "bee dunker" so................there.

Bee dunking is fun ... though unnecessary because all these guys and girls end out debunking themselves in the end.

 

[Oystein]

The "footprint" argument is a particular bee dunker obsession, which is funny, because at least half the time bee dunkers themselves don't even know what their own argument is.

This is WRONG.
Please have a look at the home page of http://ae911truth.org/
Concentrate on the right margin. It currently is all about WTC7.
I quote:

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:
...
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

As DaveThomas already pointed out, there is a substantial number of engineers who, when signing the "Petition", declared that this argument is one that persuaded them to assign some measure of probability to the idea of CD.

So you see, the footprint argument is NOT something that debunkers obsess about. The footprint idea is central to the AE911T hoax!

Furthermore, your immediate reply to DaveThomas was: "Dave Thomas still doesn't understand what a demolition footprint is.". You never gave a definition yourself. So triforcharity asked you a simple yes/no-question about it. After that you danced an evasion dance for 4 pages, 4 days and about 36 of your posts until you were able to answer this simple yes/no question, which had to be repeated to you at least 22 times before you finally gave an honest answer. That answer ("no[, the demolition footprint does not include the roofs of adjacent buildings]") and your early claim "Whereas Building 7 does indeed drop ... into its own footprint." have been shown to be FALSE, in that WTC7 did indeed drop onto the roof of an adjacent building (Fiterman Hall), and thus, by your definition of "footprint", outside of the footprint.
If you claim that you have the correct understanding of the word "footprint", you should now agree that AE911T makes a false claim on their home page.
What you do instead is
a) deny knowledge about what hit Fiterman Hall on the head
b) handwave and make excuses, trying to weasle out of your errors.

If a building falls straight down, it falls into its own footprint. Does anyone disagree with this? Whether some pieces get flung out to the side, whether the rubble spreads over the building's literal design footprint, which it will, it still falls into its own footprint. WTC7, from what we can see in videos, fell straight down. It did not fall to either side. It did not partially collapse. It fell straight down, as a whole, into its own footprint. Just like a professional demolition, but perhaps, as you suggest, not as tidy. Is that surprising to you? That some pieces were flung out? Funnily enough, it doesn't exactly help your argument!

Again:
* You agreed that the roofs of adjacent buildings do not belong to the footprint
* You must now be aware that Fiterman Hall was hit on the roof
You must therefore agree that WTC7 dropped outside its footprint (waaaay outside in fact), despite the neat appearance on some videos, and that this is very unlike a controlled demolition.

I will agree with you, though, as I already stated several pages back, that saying that the Twin Towers "fell" into their own footprints in the same way as WTC7, or like some kind of professional implosion, may not be accurate. But I'm not sure who, besides bee dunkers, is claiming this, either.

There were so many things going on with the towers, it's hard to find any one word that describes their destruction and descent.

You have already implicitly agreed that "landed in its own footprint" is wrong. But that is a claim made by AE911T on their starting page, and it is a false claim that convinced some sumb engineers to sign the so-called petition.

Do you agree? YES or NO, ergo?

 

[ergo]

This thread proves why arguing with bee dunkers is mostly a waste of time.

Once more -- more slowly this time:

If. a. building. falls. straight. down. it. falls. into. its. own. footprint.

Does.... anyone.... disagree.... with.... this?

 

[carlitos]

The Salomon Brothers Building did not fall "straight down," so you are failing to make a relevant point here.

 

[excaza]

Ok, but none of them fell straight down, so what's your point?

 

[ergo]

Okay, how did Building 7 fall?