Q's about AE911T

[Oystein]

This is an interesting post from Oystein:
...
"Mostly"? You're not sure? And, sorry to inform you, but most people understand that buildings falling down would be due to gravity. This may be a new revelation for bee dunkers, but it isn't for the rest of the world.

How did you construe from what you quoted that I am not sure? I am dead sure! heh! Of course I am sure that >>90% of the energy that makes a steel framed building collapse is gravity, and only a small percentage (or zero) comes from fires, impacts or explosives.

...
is most definitely a bee dunker claim. Real debunkers don't make this claim, because it's not only silly, but false.

No, it's correct. Unless you theorize that hundreds of tons of high explosives and/or thermite were used on each WTC building.

...
Your logic here is riddled with flaws. Here is the correct version:

Premise 1: WTC7 fell into its own footprint
Premise 2: Buildings don't typically fall, as a whole, into their footprints, and certainly not from fire, unless they've been CDed.
Premise 3: see other observations cited...

Conclusion: For this and the other reasons cited, WTC7 resembles a CD collapse.

Hope that helps

It does.
Premise 1 is FALSE.
Conclusion invalid.
End of story.

(Besides, Premise 2 is unsubstantiated, Premise 3 is vague mumble-jumble)

 

[twinstead]

You can always tell by their posts that Per usual, truthers like ergo forget sometimes that they are a tiny cult, and totally in the minority in their opinion about the collapses. I swear, ergo, that your posts especially lead me to believe you think that everybody gets the fact that the collapses were impossible as described in the "official story", and you are trying to convince a small group of "bee dunkers" who are stuck believing otherwise.

In actuality, of course, the "bee dunkers" on JREF represent the majority opinion and is pretty much the reaction truthers would get from any respected engineering or scientific organization anywhere on Earth in real life.

I get a giggle out of that kind of attitude.

 

[ergo]

Premise 1 is FALSE.
Conclusion invalid.
End of story.

(Besides, Premise 2 is unsubstantiated, Premise 3 is vague mumble-jumble)

Let me see if I can sum up the argument made by this weird and tiny faction of bee dunker "footprint" theorists:

1) WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because the rubble pile spread into the street. This never happens in CD.

2) It did not fall into its own footprint because it fell sideways. We know it fell sideways because pieces of the building flew into other buildings. This does not happen in CD.

And finally,

3) Buildings collapsing naturally do not fall into their own footprints. Since WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, it is obviously a natural collapse.

Does that about sum it up?

I would add that your logic should lead to the conclusion also that

4) the Twin Towers also fell sideways because large pieces of those buildings landed in other buildings.

Do bee dunkers agree?

 

[DGM]

Do bee dunkers agree?

Don't know. Find a "bee dunker" (whatever that is) and ask him/her/it.

 

[Sabretooth]

Let me see if I can sum up the argument made by this weird and tiny faction of bee dunker "footprint" theorists:

1) WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because the rubble pile spread into the street. This never happens in CD.

2) It did not fall into its own footprint because it fell sideways. We know it fell sideways because pieces of the building flew into other buildings. This does not happen in CD.

And finally,

3) Buildings collapsing naturally do not fall into their own footprints. Since WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, it is obviously a natural collapse.

Does that about sum it up?

I would add that your logic should lead to the conclusion also that

4) the Twin Towers also fell sideways because large pieces of those buildings landed in other buildings.

Do bee dunkers agree?

Hey ergo...how about giving the question in this OP a shot before pushing your CD theory hypothesis guess?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190114

 

[ergo]

Okay. Do the footprint theorists here agree?

 

[Oystein]

Let me see if I can sum up the argument made by this weird and tiny faction of bee dunker "footprint" theorists:

1) [BS point snipped]

2) [BS point snipped]

And finally,

3) [BS point snipped]

Does that about sum it up?

I would add that your logic should lead to the conclusion also that

4) [BS point snipped]

Do bee dunkers agree?

Obvious troll is obvious.
But let me be patient.





Premise 1: You have admitted earlier that no, the roofs of adjacent buildings does not belong to the footprint.
Premise 2: Part of WTC7 fell onto the roof of an adjacent building (Fiterman)
Conclusion: WTC7 did not fall into its footprint

Do you agree with either premise?
Is the conclusion drawn correctly?

 

[twinstead]

Let me see if I can sum up the argument made by this weird and tiny faction of bee dunker "footprint" theorists:

1) WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because the rubble pile spread into the street. This never happens in CD.

2) It did not fall into its own footprint because it fell sideways. We know it fell sideways because pieces of the building flew into other buildings. This does not happen in CD.

And finally,

3) Buildings collapsing naturally do not fall into their own footprints. Since WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, it is obviously a natural collapse.

Does that about sum it up?

I would add that your logic should lead to the conclusion also that

4) the Twin Towers also fell sideways because large pieces of those buildings landed in other buildings.

Do bee dunkers agree?

Why do you still imply that you hold the majority view and we're a "tiny faction"? It's totally the opposite, and you know it. There's a reason why it's called the "commonly-held narrative" and not the "official story".

You are the "tiny faction" that thinks 9-11 was an inside job.

 

[ergo]

Oystein, did the Twin Towers fall sideways or not?

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, did the Twin Towers fall sideways or not?

Leave the goal posts where they are.
Stop asking nonsensical questions. You have been informed about the fallacies you imply with this question.

Answer instead:
Do you still agree that the roof of adjacent buildings does not belong to the footprint of a building?
Do you agree that part of WTC7 fell onto the roof of Fiterman Hall?
If you answer YES to both, do you agree with the conclusion that WTC7 did not drop into its footprint?

 

[ergo]

The three points I list here:

1) WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because the rubble pile spread into the street. This never happens in CD.

2) It did not fall into its own footprint because it fell sideways. We know it fell sideways because pieces of the building flew into other buildings. This does not happen in CD.

And finally,

3) Buildings collapsing naturally do not fall into their own footprints. Since WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, it is obviously a natural collapse.

are actual arguments that the footprint theorists have made in this thread.

Oystein dismisses them as "B.S. points", even though he himself stated these very things. What is going on here? Are you now retracting what you previously asserted?

 

[Horatius]

Let me see if I can sum up the argument made by this weird and tiny faction of bee dunker "footprint" theorists:

1) WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because the rubble pile spread into the street. This never happens in CD.

2) It did not fall into its own footprint because it fell sideways. We know it fell sideways because pieces of the building flew into other buildings. This does not happen in CD.

And finally,

3) Buildings collapsing naturally do not fall into their own footprints. Since WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, it is obviously a natural collapse.

Does that about sum it up?

I would add that your logic should lead to the conclusion also that

4) the Twin Towers also fell sideways because large pieces of those buildings landed in other buildings.

Do bee dunkers agree?

Thank you for this almost-perfect example of a strawman argument.

 

[ergo]

Oh, now it's a "strawman".

So, WTC 7 did NOT fall sideways? Yes or no?

 

[Oystein]

Oh, now it's a "strawman".

So, WTC 7 did NOT fall sideways? Yes or no?

False dilemma. You were already educated about the fallacies implied in this stupid question.

And yes, strawman. You summed up my position in a way that implies the opposite of my posotion. I did not reply to this obvious trolling.

Now simply the truth:
- Does the roof of an adjacent building belong to the footprint?
- Did WTC7 fall onto the roof of an adjacent building?
- Conclusion: Did WTC7 fall into its footprint?

All three questions to be answered with either "yes" or "no"

 

[ergo]

You won't answer my questions, but you insist on my answering yours a second and third time.

In the interests of getting some rational acknowledgment from you, here we go again:

Now simply the truth:
- Does the roof of an adjacent building belong to the footprint?
- Did WTC7 fall onto the roof of an adjacent building?
- Conclusion: Did WTC7 fall into its footprint?

- No. But sometimes pieces go flying.
- According to bee dunkers, a piece of it did. Yes.
- Yes.

Now, answer my questions:

1) Did WTC 7 fall sideways?
2) Did the Twin Towers fall sideways?

Yes or no.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let me see if I can sum up the argument made by this weird and tiny faction of bee dunker "footprint" theorists:

1) WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because the rubble pile spread into the street.

Right.

This never happens in CD.

Wrong.

2) It did not fall into its own footprint because it fell sideways.

Wrong.

We know it fell sideways because pieces of the building flew into other buildings.

Wrong.

This does not happen in CD.

Partly right.

3) Buildings collapsing naturally do not fall into their own footprints.

Wrong.

Since WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, it is obviously a natural collapse.

Wrong.

Does that about sum it up?

One and a half points, out of a possible seven. F - can do better.

(Actually, maybe not.)

I would add that your logic should lead to the conclusion also that

4) the Twin Towers also fell sideways because large pieces of those buildings landed in other buildings.

Do bee dunkers agree?

No. Nobody but you is dividing all building collapses into two, and only two categories: those that fall entirely into their own footprints, and those that fall sideways.

Let me remind you that the truther argument is that WTC7 fell exactly the way that buildings fall in a controlled demolition, and that only a controlled demolition can account for this. We're just pointing out that WTC7 didn't fall exactly the way that buildings fall in a controlled demolition, and that, even if it had, this would still not prove that it was a controlled demolition. Since all the other evidence indicates the collapse was caused by the fire, the burden of proof is on truthers to show otherwise.

Dave

 

[carlitos]

ergo, you already debunked ae911truth's claim. You can stop now.

 

[GlennB]

- According to bee dunkers, a piece of it did. Yes.

It isn't 'according' to anyone. It really happened. Or do you disagree?

 

[Horatius]

Oh, now it's a "strawman".

So, WTC 7 did NOT fall sideways? Yes or no?

Here's the post where you claimed Oystein "stated these very things".

Yes, part fell sideways over Vesey, another part fell sideways onto the roof and into the face of Fiterman Hall. And another part fell straight down - d'uh.

Fiterman Hall is another building.
You already accepted that roofs of other buildings are NOT part of the footprint.
By your ownj criteria, WTC did NOT fall into its footprint.
If your definition of "footprint" requires a collapse straight down, we now have total proof that WTC7 did not fall straight down, and not into its foorprint.

It doesn't matter what else you call the fall.

Here's your post from above:

Let me see if I can sum up the argument made by this weird and tiny faction of bee dunker "footprint" theorists:

1) WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because the rubble pile spread into the street. This never happens in CD.

2) It did not fall into its own footprint because it fell sideways. We know it fell sideways because pieces of the building flew into other buildings. This does not happen in CD.

And finally,

3) Buildings collapsing naturally do not fall into their own footprints. Since WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, it is obviously a natural collapse.

Does that about sum it up?

I would add that your logic should lead to the conclusion also that

4) the Twin Towers also fell sideways because large pieces of those buildings landed in other buildings.

Do bee dunkers agree?

I've highlighted the portions that do not appear in his post, where you claim he stated "these very things". That's a strawman argument. Just because one portion of the argument overlaps his actual argument does not mean the argument isn't a strawman argument. A strawman still has the basic shape of a man, after all.

I love how you're trying to act as if the "footprint" argument was started by rationalists, in some desperate attempt to prove the collapses were natural collapses, when in fact, it was started by the truthers in an attempt to prove that they were not natural. Now you've come down to trying to show that CD collapses and natural collapses are essentially indistinguishable on the basis of where the debris tends to fall, which of course completely destroys the base of the Truther arguments, that the collapses are somehow suspicious because they were too perfect for natural collapses.

It's just precious how you've spent weeks now trying to show that that means our arguments are weakened.

 

[ergo]

Thanks Dave. You are confirming that the arguments made by bee dunkers in this thread, which I was summarizing there, have no basis.

The aetruth argument is that WTC 7's collapse resembled a CD. None of you have made any credible points against this.