• 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

Horatius, do you agree that gravity pulls things downward in the most efficient manner it can? Then how would these "bits" be hitting other buildings both to the west and north, and in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?
 
ergo said:
Horatius, do you agree that gravity pulls things downward in the most efficient manner it can? Then how would these "bits" be hitting other buildings both to the west and north and in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?
Click to expand...


oh what happened to the truther mantra "path of least resistance" ?
 
Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?
 
ergo said:
Horatius, do you agree that gravity pulls things downward in the most efficient manner it can? Then how would these "bits" be hitting other buildings both to the west and north, and in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?
Click to expand...



Sure, so long as you admit that "the most efficient manner it can" is a relative term. Things collide and are deflected, you know. Any collision that imparts an impulse in any direction other than downwards to any part of the structure will result in a parabolic path for the part so affected. Such lateral impulses would be expected to be randomly distributed, leading to the complicated collapse pattern, that is, hitting buildings in several directions, that was actually observed.

That you apparently need this to be explained to you is really quite disheartening.
 
You forgot to answer the second part of the question: in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?



In other words: Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?
 
ergo said:
Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?
Click to expand...



Because we're not arguing that. That's your strawman version of our argument again.


As I sad before, it was the Truthers who insisted that the collapse patterns somehow prove something. That you're now arguing that you expect a controlled demolition to result in the same pattern of debris as any other collapse casts aside that entire line of reasoning, a line of reasoning that, as others have pointed out, is a key plank in the A&E9/11 platform.

Here's a deal: you convince them to remove this claim from their website, and we'll all shut up about it, okay?
 
ergo said:
You forgot to answer the second part of the question: in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?



In other words: Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?
Click to expand...



See above for the "in other words part". As for "straight down", "straight down" is an absolute term, not a relative one. Any deviation from straight down means it isn't. So at this point we're arguing about how close to "straight down" any particular collapse from any particular cause should be expected to be.

Again, the Truthers are the ones who are insisting that the collapses we saw were too close to "straight down" to be any thing other than a CD, but now you've clearly backed away from that claim, due to obvious fact that debris hit several other buildings. You're paradoxically trying to assert that the collapse didn't look like a CD because THEY weren't stupid enough to make it perfect, but that it's still close enough to a CD that it's still suspicious. I'd ask you to be honest and admit that's what you're doing, but I've come to expect a complete lack of honest debate from any of you truthers.
 
Horatius said:
Because we're not arguing that. That's your strawman version of our argument again.

As I sad before, it was the Truthers who insisted that the collapse patterns somehow prove something. That you're now arguing that you expect a controlled demolition to result in the same pattern of debris as any other collapse casts aside that entire line of reasoning, a line of reasoning that, as others have pointed out, is a key plank in the A&E9/11 platform.
Click to expand...


AETruth doesn't talk about the debris pattern for WTC7, that I know of. The only people I see making a fuss about this are the footprint theorists on JREF.

You haven't answered my question. If you're accepting that WTC7 did eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, how does this prove it didn't fall straight down?
 
Horatius said:
Again, the Truthers are the ones who are insisting that the collapses we saw were too close to "straight down" to be any thing other than a CD, but now you've clearly backed away from that claim, due to obvious fact that debris hit several other buildings.
Click to expand...

Um, no, I haven't backed away from that claim, as my question above clearly indicates.
 
ergo said:
AETruth doesn't talk about the debris pattern for WTC7, that I know of. The only people I see making a fuss about this are the footprint theorists on JREF.
Click to expand...



"That you know of". See, that right there is the dishonesty I was mentioning. Here's a link to a post that discusses exactly what A&E9/11 claims about WTC7:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6706194#post6706194


Oh, and look who the very next poster is. If you don't know what they say about it, it's only because you've chosen to ignore everybody who has ever tried to point it out to you.

Now, once again, here's a direct quote from A&E9/11's front page, discussing WTC7:

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
Click to expand...


Notice, "its own" footprint. No mention of anything going anywhere else, and certainly not all over several other buildings.

So, convince them to remove this assertion, and we'll shut up about it. Deal?
 
(Note to lurkers: This is what happens when you actually try to follow bee dunker logic to some kind of rational conclusion.)
 
Horatius, did building 7 itself crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
 
ergo said:
(Note to lurkers: This is what happens when you actually try to follow bee dunker logic to some kind of rational conclusion.)
Click to expand...

What happens is (for all those keeping score at home), twoofers get their a** handed to them...every time!
 
Dogtown, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
 
ergo said:
AETruth doesn't talk about the debris pattern for WTC7, that I know of. The only people I see making a fuss about this are the footprint theorists on JREF.

You haven't answered my question. If you're accepting that WTC7 did eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, how does this prove it didn't fall straight down?
Click to expand...

You're wrong about the collapse. The commonly-held narrative of the collapse stands until people like you get somebody who can do something about it to not think you're a bunch of idiots.

Good luck with that.
 
Twinstead, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?
 
DGM said:
Do bee dunkers.....do bee do...do bee...do?
Click to expand...

6a00e553deebaf883401310fd7ba33970c-550wi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom