• 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

twinstead said:
semantics: the last refuge of the vanquished.
Click to expand...

LOL. Now ergo is the one picking on "semantics"! :D:D:D

No, Twinstead, this isn't a case of mere "semantics", when we have real people here trying to make a real argument that parts of a building are the building itself. In fact, this seems to underlie the entire bee dunker argument that WTC 7 "didn't fall straight down".

Try reading the threads you post in some time.
 
ergo said:
Oystein, did "the building" (by your definition) (translation for the rest of us: debris), crash into other buildings in four directions simultaneously? Did it fall at free fall speed at all times? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

That wasn't an answer, and it didn't contain two or more of your alleged logical problems.

I guess if you can't name any alleged logical problems, you better retract your claim.
 
I don't waste my time that way, Oystein, if you can't see for yourself how equating parts of something with the whole of something will be problematic all the way down the line.

I asked you a question. According to your "logic", Building 7 would have fallen at free fall speed at all times. Do you concede this?
 
ergo said:
LOL. Now ergo is the one picking on "semantics"! :D:D:D

No, Twinstead, this isn't a case of mere "semantics", when we have real people here trying to make a real argument that parts of a building are the building itself. In fact, this seems to underlie the entire bee dunker argument that WTC 7 "didn't fall straight down".

Try reading the threads you post in some time.
Click to expand...

The "entire bee dunker argument" is that you have no evidence that anything other than fire and damage felled the building, nor have you provided ANY alternate theory of the collapse that fits ALL the available evidence better than the NIST's theory, therefore IT STANDS. That's the big picture.

That big picture makes your semantics irrelevant.
 
ergo said:
No, Twinstead, this isn't a case of mere "semantics", when we have real people here trying to make a real argument that parts of a building are the building itself.
Click to expand...

No, we're trying to make the argument that parts of a building are parts of the building itself. We're not the ones saying that the building fell entirely into its own footprint even though parts of it fell outside the footprint.

And, no, technically it isn't really a case of semantics. There is no possible assignment of meaning to ergo's claims such that they're internally consistent.

Dave
 
Looks like Oystein's new girlfriend has a penchant for yellow and black.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And, no, technically it isn't really a case of semantics. There is no possible assignment of meaning to ergo's claims such that they're internally consistent.
Click to expand...

You have a point, but I couldn't figure out any other way to describe his infuriating and arrogant obfuscation.
 
ergo said:
I don't waste my time that way, Oystein, if you can't see for yourself how equating parts of something with the whole of something will be problematic all the way down the line.
Click to expand...

Why should I see your claim? It's yours! Make it!

ergo said:
I asked you a question. According to your "logic", Building 7 would have fallen at free fall speed at all times. Do you concede this?
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So you think it's obvious that parts of the building are not parts of the building?
Click to expand...

Are you doubting this again? Why don't you ask your colleagues?

Just a few of the numerous examples of bee dunkers equating parts with the whole:

ergo said:
If it didn't fall straight down, how did it fall? Sideways?
Click to expand...
excaza said:
It hit other buildings - Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Click to expand...


Oystein said:
We have photos of Fiterman that sustained such extreme damage that it had to get torn down entirely years later.

Fiterman is on the other side of WTC7, as seen from WTC plaza.

What do you suppose damaged the roof and face of Fiterman Hall, if it wasn't WTC7?
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
Did the Landmark fall on top of another building, and across a 4-lane street on the other side?

No.

But WTC7 did.
Click to expand...

TruthersLie said:
WTC7 didn't fall STRAIGHT down.
It didn't fall into its own footprint, unless the roof of fiterman hall was part of that footprint.
Click to expand...

TruthersLie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Horatius said:
Yes. That you present these as two mutually exclusive positions speaks volumes. If someone fell and hit his head on a table, would you object to someone saying, "He fell on the table"?
Click to expand...

Dog Town said:
Debris from 7WTC, is 7WTC!
Click to expand...
 
Oystein said:
ergo said:
I asked you a question. According to your "logic", Building 7 would have fallen at free fall speed at all times. Do you concede this?
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
Click to expand...

So then you're conceding that the WTC 7 itself did not hit Fiterman Hall, and that it was a piece of the building that hit it.
 
ergo said:
Are you doubting this again? Why don't you ask your colleagues?

Just a few of the numerous examples of bee dunkers equating parts with the whole:
Click to expand...

Once again, if the building fell over like a tree would that mean it ISN'T a demolition?

Once again, if the way the towers fell is suspicious, WHY DIDN'T they make it fall in a way that is NOT suspicious?
 
... at least I got bee dunkers so far to stop saying the building fell sideways! :D
 
ergo said:
... at least I got bee dunkers so far to stop saying the building fell sideways! :D
Click to expand...

I don't remember anyone ever saying that...

But that aside...WTC7 only fell "straight down" for a short portion of it's collapse. However, the videos show a significant amount of twisting, bowing, bulging, and buckling before and during that "straight down" portion of the fall as well, which are not characteristics of a CD. Then the building toppled over about halfway down, also not a characteristic of a CD.

WTC7 was not a CD. Period.
 
So is ergo claiming that WTC7 did NOT hit 30 West Broadway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom