Q's about AE911T

[Oystein]

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?

Define "straight down"
Define "footprint"

Please define them such that not EVERY building that has ever collapsed due to ANY reason fit the definition. Your definition should give rise to distinction.
Otherwise, any truther claims about "straight down" into the "foorprint" being "evidence" for this or that is rubbish.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Liar. Itg is right on the start page of http://www.ae911truth.org/ and I already quoted it in this very thread:

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

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?

Are you saying that EVERY building collapses into its footprint, because we can, as a general rule, just discard everything that falls outside?

In that silly Humpty-Dumpty world, only a collapsing building that leaves the foorprint entirely free of debris would not be "straight down in its footprint", wouldn't it, ergo?

 

[DGM]

It looks aerodynamically unstable to me.

Wings astern of apparent centre of mass?

I think I read somewhere they were incapable of flight.




Is there anything else in this thread worth paying attention to?

 

[Oystein]

AE posted a great photo in the other thread.

Please explain how this picture shows that building 7 fell outside the site it was built on:

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/WTC_7_aerial_photo.jpg[/qimg]

This picture wrecks your case.

Some debris fell on the premises of Fiterman Hall, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on the premises of the Verizon Building, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on the premises of the US Post Office, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on the premises of WTC6, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on Vesey Street, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on Barclay Street, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on Washington Street, which is outside of the footprint.
Some debris fell on West Broadway, which is outside of the footprint.
And finally, some debris managed to not leave the WTC7 plot.

So the building fell outside the footprint in all directions on the compass.

Did WTC7 fall neatly into its own footprint, given the facvt that debris left the footprint on all four sides? Especially taking into account that it did not only spill sideways on the ground, but in fact fell waaaaaaaaaaaaay outside the footprint as high as the roof of Fiterman Hall?


If THAT collapse can be said to be within the footprint, please show us one collapse in history where the building managed to miss the footprint!

 

[ergo]

Define "straight down"
Define "footprint"

Wow.

After 11 pages, Oystein does not know what these terms mean.

 

[dafydd]

Wow.

After 11 pages, Oystein does not know what these terms mean.

You owe me a new irony meter. It will be hard to find,every one on earth just exploded.

 

[ergo]

Oopsie! Building implosion damages nearby building.

 

[Oystein]

Wow.

After 11 pages, Oystein does not know what these terms mean.

It's because you never defined it, and use it in a way that is irreconcilable with the definitions given by others.

 

[Oystein]

Oopsie! Building implosion damages nearby building.

Great! Shall we call the responsible demo company and ask them if that building fell into its footprint or not?
What do you predict their amswer to be?

ETA: I should have read the article first.

Viking Arms at 1527 S. Flagler Drive, 142 feet from the implosion site, has required temporary patches to fill about 40 holes on its roof, ...
...
Shulman said he was surprised to find holes ranging from pencil tip dots to six-inch punctures.

Uhm, ergo, they are talking about some small chunks flying around.
Fiterman Hall did not just get some punktures. It sustained deadky structural damage - it was beyond repair and had to be demolished. You also saw that the Verizon building did not just get hit by flying debris, but that instead huge pieces of the wall structure fell into it. Sideways, if you like.

 

[ergo]

Good question, Oystein. Very good question. What is your answer?

 

[Oystein]

Good question, Oystein. Very good question. What is your answer?

Please note my edit. I thought you were going to present us with an example of a CD'ed building's structure falling into adjacing buildings. Instead here is something different: Small chunks of concrete flung by explosives, making little, repairable holes in the roof.
You know that there weren't any such explosions at the WTC7, right?

 

[ergo]

Uhm, ergo, they are talking about some small chunks flying around.
Fiterman Hall did not just get some punktures. It sustained deadky structural damage - it was beyond repair and had to be demolished. You also saw that the Verizon building did not just get hit by flying debris, but that instead huge pieces of the wall structure fell into it. Sideways, if you like.

Very untidy implosion. How unprofessional of them.

Doesn't change the fact that WTC7 fell straight down. Maybe it hit part of the Verizon when it tipped a bit towards the end. It still mostly fell on top of the site upon which it was built. It didn't fall "sideways". It didn't topple over.

THERE ARE NO OTHER WORDS TO DESCRIBE WHAT IT DID. Do you get this?

 

[Oystein]

Very untidy implosion. How unprofessional of them.

Doesn't change the fact that WTC7 fell straight down. Maybe it hit part of the Verizon when it tipped a bit towards the end. It still mostly fell on top of the site upon which it was built. It didn't fall "sideways". It didn't topple over.

THERE ARE NO OTHER WORDS TO DESCRIBE WHAT IT DID. Do you get this?

It fell straight down, except for all the many and very large parts that didn't.
And because there were such large portions of the building that did NOT fall straight down, WTC7 did not fall into its footprint.
Not by any reasonable definition of the word, that is.

 

[ergo]

It fell straight down, except for all the many and very large parts that didn't.

Sure.

And because there were such large portions of the building that did NOT fall straight down, WTC7 did not fall into its footprint.

Um, where did they go? Look at the picture again and tell me where you see the bulk of the rubble lying.

 

[Edx]

So which is it? Did the building itself crash into Fiterman Hall and Verizon building, or did it eject chunks of itself as it descended?

LOL!

This gets more hilarious. So this demolition was not only silent to all videos we have of it, you're now suggesting explosives so powerful they EJECTED chunks of itself into other buildings?

You just make it worse for yourselves. So where are these loud explosions ergo, where are they on any collapse video?

 

[triforcharity]

Oopsie! Building implosion damages nearby building.

OOPSIE!!

Shulman said he was surprised to find holes ranging from pencil tip dots to six-inch punctures.

Not to mention that it seems very suspicious based on the comments. But, that is mearly speculation.

Oops! Not even close the the stimated MILLIONS of dallars of damage done to the USPO, Fitterman Hall, and The Verizon Building.

BTW, Fitterman Hall had to be demolished.

 

[Oystein]

Sure.



Um, where did they go? Look at the picture again and tell me where you see the bulk of the rubble lying.

You know the answer, and you know that this does not save your claim that "WTC7 fell into its footprint".



Let's try to remember how this debate started:
DaveThomas pointed out that AE911T makes the following argument:
"WTC7 dropped into its footprint. This is proof against natural collapse".

If, by your unusual definition (about which I must make assumptions, as you refuse to state your definition), a building drops into its footprint if >50% ("the bulk") of the debris end up within the footprint, and <50% may end up outside, and if you also support the claim that "falls into footprint = intentioinal demolition", you must logically claim that a natural collapse would throw "the bulk" of the debris outside of the footprint.
Correct?

 

[ergo]

BTW, Fitterman Hall had to be demolished.

Because WTC7 fell on top of it?

 

[ergo]

You know the answer, and you know that this does not save your claim that "WTC7 fell into its footprint".

No, I don't know the answer. I'm trying to understand--well, not so much your argument, but why you think you can make it without looking like a complete twit. You seem to want to imply that the bulk of the building fell some other place but down. Where did these large chunks go? Look at the various pictures and tell me.

If, by your unusual definition (about which I must make assumptions, as you refuse to state your definition), a building drops into its footprint if >50% ("the bulk") of the debris end up within the footprint, and <50% may end up outside, and if you also support the claim that "falls into footprint = intentioinal demolition", you must logically claim that a natural collapse would throw "the bulk" of the debris outside of the footprint.
Correct?

The "fall into its footprint" claim describes the building's smooth, symmetrical descent as a whole to the ground. It has nothing to do with the debris footprint.

 

[triforcharity]

Because WTC7 fell on top of it?

Nope. Mothra Poop. Like pterodactyl poop, but MUCH MUCH bigger.