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

No, I'm confirming that the arguments you're pretending have been made, are in fact your own fabrications.

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

Even if aetruth were correct that WTC7's collapse resembled a CD visually, this would do nothing to overturn the mountain of evidence that it was no such thing.

Dave
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

You omit important parts of their argument.
They are not just vaguely saying "resembled a CD", they say "resembled a CD, because it fell into its footprint".
We take issue with this because
a) It did not fall into its footprint (a false claim that you have made yourself and, AFAIK, not yet retracted)
b) Even if it had fallen into its foorprint (by whatever definition of "footprint" makes them happy), that would not constitute proof for CD.

I am trying to find common ground with you on part a). So please:
- Does the footprint of a building include the roofs of adjacent buildings (you previously answered "no", so I am only asking for confirmation here).
- Did part of WTC7 fall onto an adjacent building (yes or no)?
- Conclusion: Did WTC7 therefore fall into its footprint?
 
ergo said:
I would still like to have Oystein answer my questions.
Click to expand...

And again, the question implies a fallacy. Therefore, it cannot be correctly answered.
It is also not relevant to the point we are discussing, which is "did WTC7 fall into its footprint?". It would also not be relevant to a discussion about whether or not the Twin Towers fell into their footprints.
And finally, I am not letting you move goal posts.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Actually, you missed one. Oystein never said the building fell sideways, which takes care of the rest of point (2).

Dave
Click to expand...



I gave him partial credit, as Oystein did say "part fell sideways over Vesey". However, the rest is unambiguously absent in Oystein's post, and there's no (honest) way ergo can claim otherwise.
 
ergo said:

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.
Click to expand...

Argument so far:

If it fell int it's footprint it was a CD.

If it didn't fall into it's footprint it was a CD.

An absolute refusal to define what you mean by footprint.

If it looked like a CD it was a CD.

If it didn't look like a CD it was a CD.

Now you want a definition of "controlled".


I see a pattern here.
 
Oystein said:
They are not just vaguely saying "resembled a CD", they say "resembled a CD, because it fell into its footprint".
We take issue with this because
a) It did not fall into its footprint (a false claim that you have made yourself and, AFAIK, not yet retracted)
b) Even if it had fallen into its foorprint (by whatever definition of "footprint" makes them happy), that would not constitute proof for CD.
Click to expand...

The problem is you haven't shown in any way that the building did not fall into its footprint. You make some childish argument that because the rubble spread into the street is "proof" that it didn't fall straight down. If an entire building comes down, the rubble is going to spread into the street, whether it's a natural collapse or a CD. It obviously did so here also because large sections of it had not be broken. This is not proof that no pre-planned demolition took place. If you want to argue that it's proof that the demolition of WTC7 was not openly contracted out and therefore a professional demolition team was not on hand that day to bring it down in a safe and tidy manner, go right ahead. You would not counter any objection to that.

To further argue that because parts of the building hit nearby buildings also proves nothing as to whether it was a natural, fire-induced collapse or a CD. In fact, it points more to CD than fire.

I am trying to find common ground with you on part a). So please:
- Does the footprint of a building include the roofs of adjacent buildings (you previously answered "no", so I am only asking for confirmation here).
- Did part of WTC7 fall onto an adjacent building (yes or no)?
- Conclusion: Did WTC7 therefore fall into its footprint?
Click to expand...

You are not trying to find common ground with me when you are ignoring the flaws in your own argumentation and then insisting repeatedly that I answer your same questions over and over.

For the last time, Oystein, the fact that parts of WTC 7 hit other buildings does not change the argument that it fell straight down, into its own footprint, and that the only buildings that have ever collapsed in that manner have done so from CD.

Get over it.
 
Do bee dunkers think that for a covert demolition of WTC7 to happen, a professional demolition team would have to be on hand that day, disguised as firemen or god knows what, to bring the building down in a safe and tidy manner, such that it wouldn't hit any other buildings? Do bee dunkers think that a covert demolition operation would be really concerned about collateral damage? After what happened with the towers?
 
Do you think that a covert demolition operation would want to look exactly like a professional, controlled demolition?
 
ergo said:
The problem is you haven't shown in any way that the building did not fall into its footprint.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Your rhetorical efforts cannot change the fact that Fiterman and Verizon were damaged. Neither of those buildings were inside the 'footprint' of WTC 7.
Your efforts fail.

This is not proof that no pre-planned demolition took place.
Click to expand...

It neither proves nor disproves CD. So truthers are incorrect in claiming that it does.

To further argue that because parts of the building hit nearby buildings also proves nothing as to whether it was a natural, fire-induced collapse or a CD. In fact, it points more to CD than fire.
Click to expand...

If you wish to discredit yourself, you're doing an excellent job. There is no logic in that last statement.

And, as others have pointed out, you are in fact arguing directly against A&E911Truth's position that WTC 7 fell directly into it's footprint.


it fell straight down, into its own footprint, and that the only buildings that have ever collapsed in that manner have done so from CD.

Get over it.
Click to expand...

False. False and unsubstantiated bare assertion.

We are over it. You apparently are not.
 
ergo said:
Do you think that a covert demolition operation would want to look exactly like a professional, controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

No, they'd want to make it look indistinguishable from a 7-hour fire and progressive collapse, so that nobody, not even professionals, could tell the difference.:p
 
Which then begs the question: Why the **** do you people even call it a CD when it's not a Controlled Demolition?

(Not at you alienentity)
 
alienentity said:
Wrong. Your rhetorical efforts cannot change the fact that Fiterman and Verizon were damaged. Neither of those buildings were inside the 'footprint' of WTC 7.
Click to expand...


And yet when I ask bee dunkers to describe how and in what direction WTC 7 fell, I can't seem to get a consistent, logical answer. Maybe you can provide one?

How and in which direction did WTC 7 fall, in order to do the kind of damage that is claimed to both the Verizon building and Fiterman Hall?
 
ergo said:
And yet when I ask bee dunkers to describe how and in what direction WTC 7 fell, I can't seem to get a consistent, logical answer. Maybe you can provide one?

How and in which direction did WTC 7 fall, in order to do the kind of damage that is claimed to both the Verizon building and Fiterman Hall?
Click to expand...



How about, "A complicated one"?

Why is it you expect a collapse of a large building to be described in simplistic terms like "sideways"? There were bits of it going in several directions, all at the same time. Real life can be chaotic, you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom