• 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

ergo said:
You posted some youtubes of buildings collapsing, none of which prove any point that was being discussed.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try reading the article I linked to.


ergo said:
Two of your more profound stundies have already been cited in this thread. :eye-poppi

There have been several others. I don't keep track, but maybe I should. One of them begins along the lines of "where there's smoke there's...." in which you demonstrate your utter ignorance, as a supposed instructor of fire science, that smoke means incomplete combustion.

Your statements of profound, stunning, incredibility are becoming legion.
Click to expand...

And yet, not a single one of them has ever appeared in the Stundie thread, but 6 of yours from the past 2 months, have. IIRC, 3 in one day.

BTW, smoke does not mean, specifically, incomplete combustion. Feel free to prove me wrong in the thread that this comes from. It would be OT here.

Hey Ergo,

Have you figured out why you failed so bad on the Caracas Tower fire yet?

How about how the water crushes the car.

Moon sized rubble?
 
Hmmm....

Oystein said:
it is us debunkers who point out that.... the size of the debris field (or whether or not the debris field is confined to a footprint, by whatever definition) is not a criterion to tell natural from intentional.
Click to expand...

Looks like our bee dunkers are gonna have to has a wee talk with Oystein out back -- in the parking lot....
 
I wonder how many times I will have to repeat myself in this thread. I'm pretty sure I'm on count seven or eight now. Here's another:

ergo said:
What has become really silly about this is their insistence that .... WTC7's destruction must .... be as perfect as a professional demolition, as if a professional contractor was openly hired to do it and personnel were on site that day to carry it out professionally and in a controlled, tidy manner. That way no one would suspect it was deliberately brought down? :) You're grasping at straws if that's the best you can come up with (and it certainly seems to be).
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
I wonder how many times I will have to repeat myself in this thread. I'm pretty sure I'm on count seven or eight now. Here's another:
Click to expand...

Why would you repost that nonsense?

Odd how truthers are proud of their arguments from incredulity.
 
ergo said:
I wonder how many times I will have to repeat myself in this thread. I'm pretty sure I'm on count seven or eight now. Here's another:
Click to expand...

<facepalm>

No you hayseed.

The reason we harp on the "footprint" argument is that it is extremely easy to show that it is WRONG. How does a building which manages to "collapse into its own footprint" manage to strike 2 adjacent buildings, across 2 streets including hitting one on its roof?

Since any building which is collapsing into its own footprint wouldn't strike an adjacent building, it shows that wtc7 didn't "collapse into its own footprint."

it does show that it struck adjacent buildings.

it is like the inability of truther (yourself included) in understanding just what a "symmetrical" collapse looks like. The inability to understand symmetry is absolutely hysterical.

Now if you just ran away from the misused terminology no one would really argue with you that a. wtc7 collapsed. b. that from outside appearances it LOOKS like a CD. c. that it managed to strike adjacent buildings. (all of those look correct). It is just the desire to use terminology that is inaccurate that most of us are stuck on.

What has become really silly about this is their insistence that .... WTC7's destruction must .... be as perfect as a professional demolition, as if a professional contractor was openly hired to do it and personnel were on site that day to carry it out professionally and in a controlled, tidy manner. That way no one would suspect it was deliberately brought down? You're grasping at straws if that's the best you can come up with (and it certainly seems to be).
Click to expand...

Oh I get it... it falls "straight down" so it is CD. Now it falls "sorta straight down" and is "not perfect" means it is CD. Wowsers... you know the Saints could have used you to shift those goalposts...

Try to learn the proper terminology (still waiting for any demoliton texts, architectural, or engineering texts which supports your "definition" of a footprint. got one?)
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
No, you hayseed.

The reason we harp on the "footprint" argument is that it is extremely easy to show that it is WRONG. How does a building which manages to "collapse into its own footprint" manage to strike 2 adjacent buildings, across 2 streets including hitting one on its roof?

Since any building which is collapsing into its own footprint wouldn't strike an adjacent building, it shows that wtc7 didn't "collapse into its own footprint."

it does show that it struck adjacent buildings.
Click to expand...

Your argument that because pieces were flung laterally in the building's descent, pieces that apparently hit other buildings, somehow means that the building fell "sideways" is too ridiculous to even enter into.

That you would attempt to make such an argument, in the face of every video of WTC 7 that will instantly and immediately demonstrate the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim is utterly incredible.

Are you now going to try and say that the towers fell sideways too?

Moreover, that you think that the direction of WTC7's descent makes any difference to the CD argument demonstrates that you don't even understand it.

It's the stupidest, most pointless argument I've seen yet from bee dunkers. And that's saying a lot. There's a lot of competition for that ranking.
 
ergo said:
Your argument that because pieces were flung laterally in the building's descent, pieces that apparently hit other buildings, somehow means that the building fell "sideways" is too ridiculous to even enter into.

That you would attempt to make such an argument, in the face of every video of WTC 7 that will instantly and immediately demonstrate the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim is utterly incredible.
Click to expand...

WTC7lean.jpg
 
I just find it kind of entertaining that even when truthers are forced to acknowledge a collapse is not controlled they still want to claim it's a controlled event. They can't just admit that they were wrong to use the word "controlled" in their sentence structure and amend their theories to say the buildings were bombed.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I just find it kind of entertaining that even when truthers are forced to acknowledge a collapse is not controlled they still want to claim it's a controlled event. They can't just admit that they were wrong to use the word "controlled" in their sentence structure and amend their theories to say the buildings were bombed.
Click to expand...

So now it's the word "controlled" bee dunkers object to. Not the word "footprint". :rolleyes:
 
AJM8125 said:
Sure. Just never seen a demolition company bring down a building that was fully operational just eight hours prior to its collapse.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. So what point were you making with the picture you posted?
 

It did.

But even if it fell at an angle, even if it started to fall straight down, and then toppled over, DOES NOT CHANGE the ARGUMENT.
 
ergo said:
But even if it fell at an angle, even if it started to fall straight down, and then toppled over, DOES NOT CHANGE the ARGUMENT.
Click to expand...

This would be the argument that, if it didn't fall over sideways, then it fell straight down even if it didn't, and that therefore a couple of neighbouring buildings and a four lane road were part of its footprint?

Dave
 
I suppose the argument now is no matter how the WTC7 fell, it was suspicious. Great debate mojo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom