9/11 Bee dunkers are unclear: Did Building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell?

[ergo]

So I guess if we're agreeing that the towers and WTC7 fell onto their footprints, we're agreeing that all the buildings fell essentially straight down. Correct?

[brazenlilraisin]

The towers didn't fall sideways, nor did they fall up unless you believe Judy Wood. They fell down. When they did so, all three caused damage to surrounding property outside their respective footprints. Collateral damage to the extent seen on 9/11 has never resulted from the CD of any other building...has it? A tiny fraction? Anywhere? Ever?

At 12 pages in, why don't you just make a point if you have one?

[TruthersLie]

Originally Posted by ergo

I guess this puts your statements in context. You haven't even read the thread.



How about just answering the question? Did the towers fall onto their footprints? Did WTC7 fall onto its footprint?

<facepalm>

Prepositions are you friends. You should look them up.

This just might help you
http://englishflashgames.blogspot.co...lace-game.html

But then again, maybe not.

When the towers collapsed at "essentially freefall" did they collapse at "freefall?"

Yes or no


Come on. You can do it.

do you see the differences between essentially and actual? Yes or no?

Do you know the difference between IN and ON? It is a BIG difference and one that changes the entire meaning. Try to figure it out.

But with the reading list you already have (caracas tower debacle, "loose particle" fiasco, etc) you may not have time. Keep up the self bee dunking, you do it so well.

[TruthersLie]

Originally Posted by ergo

So the towers fell onto their footprints. And WTC7 too.

Okay. Great. Why didn't bee dunkers just say this somewhere back around here?

Because there is a big difference between into and onto.
Prepositions are your friends. Look them up.
Here, I've even found a game for you to try to learn.

http://englishflashgames.blogspot.co...lace-game.html

Have you figured out the difference yet?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

The towers didn't fall sideways, nor did they fall up unless you believe Judy Wood. They fell down. When they did so, all three caused damage to surrounding property outside their respective footprints. Collateral damage to the extent seen on 9/11 has never resulted from the CD of any other building...has it? A tiny fraction? Anywhere? Ever?

At 12 pages in, why don't you just make a point if you have one?

If you've been reading the threads, my point has obviously been that Dave Thomas' criticism of AETruth signatories, people who have far more experience and training than he has, is utterly lame and has never been supported. He also has been trying repeatedly to claim, for reasons still unknown, that WTC7 did not fall into or onto its footprint, i.e., that it didn't fall straight down.

Other bee dunker arguments in these two threads have included that the towers fell sideways. That the demolition industry does not use the term "footprint". That architects and engineers don't know what a building footprint is. That pieces of a building are the building itself. That the buildings themselves crashed into other buildings. That a debris pile over a building's footprint means that the building did not fall straight down. That none of the buildings fell straight down. That debris from imploded buildings never escapes the building's footprint. That debris from a 47-storey building that has been imploded or demolished in a controlled way would not lie outside the building's footprint. That natural building collapses are more likely to fling out debris than CDed buildings. And I think there are probably more here that I've forgotten.

[ergo]

Oh, and how could I forget?

That a building falling onto its footprint is fundamentally different from a building falling into its footprint. (Presumably the former doesn't have a basement.)

And the word "essentially" may not mean what we think it means. It may mean something far more mysterious.

[JohnG]

...and despite all that bluster and scorn, you still can't seem to tell us what the collapses should have looked like because deep down, you don't know and don't need to know, do you? For you, an inside job is a foregone conclusion so all aspects of the collapses look suspicious to you. Inside the footprint, outside the footprint, damage to some of the surrounding buildings, no damage to other surrounding buildings, it's all the same smoking gun to you. That's why the request to explain what the collapses should have looked like induces cognitive dissonance which you attempt to prevaricate and sneer your way around in the vain hope that no one will call you on it. Well, I'm calling you on it. All of this endless back and forth about debris, footprints and the definition of "essentially" is starting to remind me of the swallows and coconuts debate in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (ETA: or better still, the Witch scene). Stop hiding behind semantics and feigned bemusement.

WHAT SHOULD THE COLLAPSES (AND RESULTING DAMAGE TO THE AREA) HAVE LOOKED LIKE??

[TruthersLie]

Originally Posted by ergo

Oh, and how could I forget?

That a building falling onto its footprint is fundamentally different from a building falling into its footprint. (Presumably the former doesn't have a basement.)

And the word "essentially" may not mean what we think it means. It may mean something far more mysterious.

Come on Ergo. Stop dodging.

Have you figured out how to use a stopwatch yet? Have you timed the collapses of the towers? How is the "essentially freefall" different from 'freefall?' do they mean the same thing? Yes or no?

Have you figured out how the key words of essentially on are different from into their own?

Are you really telling us that you don't understand a concept a 5th grader gets? The concept of the difference between ON and INTO? Really?

No one here disagrees with the first one the essentially on their footprints. That is very straightforward. The buildings collapsed downwards "essentiall on their footprints." The debris then expanded outwards and struck the other buildings (during the collapse.. notice the key word essentailly). You and other truthers are arguing the phrase INTO their own footprint. Into means to go within. Since the footprint is defined by all citaitons (including the one you provided which completely owned you) as the area in the base of the building. If something goes INTO something else, how do parts of it manage to go OUT of what you just said it went INTO and manage to strike other buildings which are NOT IN the footprint of the building? Do you get it yet?

[Sunstealer]

In - Out
Inside - Outside
Into - Out of
Onto - Off of
On - Off

Christ on a bike - why do truthers not have any reading comprehension at all? It's a universal trait with them.

"Collapsed onto the footprint, but not inside the footprint" is not mutually exclusive.

In and out imply a boundary, therefore, in this case, an area described by the area that the building perimeter makes; namely the footprint.

Collapsing into/in/inside the footprint (area) means nothing fell outside of that footprint (area).

On and onto do not imply area at all. "The bird flew onto the roof of the house", "The 100m wide asteroid landed on the car". Since when have birds been the size of houses and cars 100m in size?

Draw a square ergo and write the words corresponding to in/out etc then post it here to atleast let us see if you can comprehend what the words mean.

[Gorgonian]

ergo, the footprint isn't in the basement.

Into means contained within the footprint (not basement).

Onto means on the footprint and elsewhere.

[triforcharity]

I love your graphic!! You win the thread!!

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Gorgonian

ergo, the footprint isn't in the basement.

Into means contained within the footprint (not basement).

Onto means on the footprint and elsewhere.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25.../footprint.png

To bring a building into its basement is another demolition expression. Same as footprint. Do some bee-googling. It doesn't mean that all debris is contained in the basement, because you are bringing, in some cases, a tall vertical structure down into a horizontal pile. When a demolition has been contracted out and planned publicly, of course, the building has had all its furniture and other things removed. This wasn't the case with the WTC. So a far larger debris pile resulted with the towers and WTC7. That's why the debris pile, no matter how neatly they may have tried to do it, could not be contained in the buildings' basements.

So anyway, bee dunkers are now telling me that "onto" means the footprint and "elsewhere". Got it.

I'm sorry that the word "onto" has for so long eluded our bee dunkers until the exact moment that I pointed out where Bazant used it. It seems that suddenly it's a very popular word.

If it was so clear to bee dunkers that the buildings fell onto their footprints, and that that was the main objection that you all had to the descriptions provided by architects and engineers who signed Richard Gage's petition, why didn't you simply bring this up back in this thread? Numerous chances.

Do bee dunkers understand what a building "footprint" means? It doesn't include other buildings. For a building to fall essentially onto its footprint means that the building fell essentially straight down. Does anybody need a definition of "essentially"?

So we are now finally agreed that the towers and WTC 7 fell straight down onto their footprints. Correct?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ergo

So I guess if we're agreeing that the towers and WTC7 fell onto their footprints, we're agreeing that all the buildings fell essentially straight down. Correct?

If they fell something other than straight down you'd have a real mystery ergo. But they fell pretty much as gravity dictates. Why do you truthers have such a hard time understanding gravity?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Gorgonian

ergo, the footprint isn't in the basement.

Into means contained within the footprint (not basement).

Onto means on the footprint and elsewhere.

That doesn't even look like a foot, what kind of bee dunker are you?

[Gorgonian]

Pretty sure we all agreed a long time ago that the collapse was more like the picture on the right than the one on the left and that this doesn't in any way support the explosive demolition scenario.

Again, does this have some sort of point?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I said it before I'll say it again (shortened this time):

Reguardless of what Ergo says or claims I figure that he's wrong about the whole "footprint" issue.

1: CD's aren't set up to be perfect.

2: CD experts can't control the entire building when it's collapsing.

3: There's no way in hell anyone in the CD business can contain debris falling outside the parameter (footprint).

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Gorgonian

...
Again, does this have some sort of point?

Trolling, in all likelihood.

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

I said it before I'll say it again (shortened this time):

Reguardless of what Ergo says or claims I figure that he's wrong about the whole "footprint" issue.

1: CD's aren't set up to be perfect.

2: CD experts can't control the entire building when it's collapsing.

3: There's no way in hell anyone in the CD business can contain debris falling outside the parameter (footprint).

Ummm...perhaps I missed something (doubt it). But the things you list above, are exactly what Demo teams are paid to do!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

Ummm...perhaps I missed something (doubt it). But the things you list above, are exactly what Demo teams are paid to do!

Let me get this straight:

Demo Teams are paid to make sure that the buildings fall into their footprint & not get any debris outside their footprint as they're falling?

Impossible! Someone would get killed trying to contain a falling building.

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

Let me get this straight:

Demo Teams are paid to make sure that the buildings fall into their footprint & not get any debris outside their footprint as they're falling?

Impossible! Someone would get killed trying to contain a falling building.

So Stundied!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

So Stundied!

Umm don't ya mean it makes sense, not "Stundied".

I'd like to see someone try to contain a falling building that was CDed & not get killed for trying such a stupid thing.

[Gorgonian]

what is this i dont even

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by ergo

Oh, and how could I forget?

That a building falling onto its footprint is fundamentally different from a building falling into its footprint. (Presumably the former doesn't have a basement.)

And the word "essentially" may not mean what we think it means. It may mean something far more mysterious.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

In - Out
Inside - Outside
Into - Out of
Onto - Off of
On - Off

Christ on a bike - why do truthers not have any reading comprehension at all? It's a universal trait with them.

"Collapsed onto the footprint, but not inside the footprint" is not mutually exclusive.

In and out imply a boundary, therefore, in this case, an area described by the area that the building perimeter makes; namely the footprint.

Collapsing into/in/inside the footprint (area) means nothing fell outside of that footprint (area).

On and onto do not imply area at all. "The bird flew onto the roof of the house", "The 100m wide asteroid landed on the car". Since when have birds been the size of houses and cars 100m in size?

Draw a square ergo and write the words corresponding to in/out etc then post it here to atleast let us see if you can comprehend what the words mean.

Originally Posted by Gorgonian

ergo, the footprint isn't in the basement.

Into means contained within the footprint (not basement).

Onto means on the footprint and elsewhere.


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25.../footprint.png

Oh my, Ergo embarrassing himself again.

How nice of JREF to provide a forum where members can conduct third grade lessons (including pictures) that enable others to better understand the English language.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

I'd like to see someone try to contain a falling building that was CDed & not get killed for trying such a stupid thing.

Chewy, the very idea behind "controlling" a collapse is to safely bring down a building while minimizing collateral damage. A successful project will not result in any damage to structures standing within a few meters of the building that's being brought down. If the building collapses in a manner that's not anticipated due either to incompetence or something malfunctioning in the rigging, and it causes damage in falling outside of the so called safe zone" then it is considered a failure. You need to slow down, you really have a habit of rushing your posts a little too often and that's causing you to make some silly mistakes... no offense.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Chewy, the very idea behind "controlling" a collapse is to safely bring down a building while minimizing collateral damage. A successful project will not result in any damage to structures standing within a few meters of the building that's being brought down. If the building collapses in a manner that's not anticipated due either to incompetence or something malfunctioning in the rigging, and it causes damage in falling outside of the so called safe zone" then it is considered a failure. You need to slow down, you really have a habit of rushing your posts a little too often and that's causing you to make some silly mistakes... no offense.

Yes I know GB. But the fact is Ergo thinks that WTC7 was a CD, and how can that be when WTC7 fell out of it's footprint & damaged nearby buildings.

BTW: I'm going between here & SLC. It gets kind of chaotic!

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

Yes I know GB. But the fact is Ergo thinks that WTC7 was a CD, and how can that be when WTC7 fell out of it's footprint & damaged nearby buildings.

Falling "inside or outside" of the footprint is not actually relevant to what causes the collapse to initiate anyway. "How a building collapses" is in the broadest of terms defined as the result of how the building responds to the loss of structural integrity, where that loss originates, and the sequence of failures that leads to the full progress (partial or whole) of the collapse. All demolitions teams do is take advantage of that in order to make it happen in a manner that they can anticipate, and by the strict definition it means to avoid collateral damage. Ergo thinks the collapse meets the criteria of "avoiding the collateral" apparently regarless of whether in reality it succeeded in that or not.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Falling "inside or outside" of the footprint is not actually relevant to what causes the collapse to initiate anyway. "How a building collapses" is in the broadest of terms defined as the result of how the building responds to the loss of structural integrity, where that loss originates, and the sequence of failures that leads to the full progress (partial or whole) of the collapse. All demolitions teams do is take advantage of that in order to make it happen in a manner that they can anticipate, and by the strict definition it means to avoid collateral damage. Ergo thinks the collapse meets the criteria of "avoiding the collateral" apparently regardless of whether in reality it succeeded in that or not.

Of course!

Ergo also has to explain why there is no audio recordings of explosives from WTC7 if indeed it was brought down by a CD.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Ergo thinks the collapse meets the criteria of "avoiding the collateral" apparently regarless of whether in reality it succeeded in that or not.

Where have I said this? Again, Grizzly, if you're not going to read the threads, you won't understand what's being argued and your posts will reflect your ignorance and tend to derail more than contribute fruitfully. Right?

So read the threads, please.

[ergo]

Still waiting to hear how a building falling onto its footprint is significantly different from a building falling into its footprint, as I don't believe there's anyone here attempting to argue that debris from CDed or imploded buildings always remains tidily within the building's footprint. I think everyone understands that this would be physically impossible.

Bee dunkers seem to now be agreeing that both the towers and WTC 7 fell essentially onto their footprints, borrowing Bazant's description. This means they fell essentially straight down, confirmed by brazenlilraisin and Wildcat:

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

The towers didn't fall sideways, nor did they fall up unless you believe Judy Wood. They fell down. When they did so, all three caused damage to surrounding property outside their respective footprints.

Originally Posted by WildCat

If they fell something other than straight down you'd have a real mystery ergo. But they fell pretty much as gravity dictates. Why do you truthers have such a hard time understanding gravity?

But a review of quotes from the thread where this question originally arose, Q's about AE911T, shows a decidedly different argument, one that appears to directly contradict what Bazant states about the towers, which is:

Originally Posted by Bazant

So, it is no surprise at all that the towers collapsed essentially on their footprint. Gravity alone must have caused just that.

Source

Bazant seems to have no semantic confusion over the term "footprint". He seems to be indicating, as I have repeatedly, that footprint refers to the site upon which the building stood. The fact that the towers shed massive chunks of themselves onto surrounding buildings also doesn't change his judgment that the towers fell essentially straight down onto their footprints. Yet bee dunkers insist that any building that has ejected chunks of itself onto neighbouring buildings cannot be said to have fallen straight down, and therefore did not fall onto, or into, their footprints!

So which is it? And if Bazant is correct in his judgment, why does Dave Thomas argue that architects and engineers don't know what a footprint is?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ergo

Still waiting to hear how a building falling onto its footprint is significantly different from a building falling into its footprint

Would you rather fall onto an operating wood chipper, or into one?

Originally Posted by ergo

Wildcat:

But a review of quotes from the thread where this question originally arose, Q's about AE911T, shows a decidedly different argument, one that appears to directly contradict what Bazant states about the towers, which is:

No, the problem is your inability to comprehend the English language.

[Grizzly Bear]

Quote:

Where have I said this?

Every time you say that inside/outside footprint distinguishes whether to categorize the collapses as professionally done controlled demolitions or "natural." Calling it a professionally carried out "controlled demolition" is retarded crap; you'd be much better off arguing that the buildings were simply bombed to make them collapse rather than agonize over trying to make it fit a specific definition that it'll never meet the criteria for, ever. All that would leave you in the liberty to do is show that bombs were the primary means used to initiate the collapses, as opposed to cramming a cube into a cylinder. Even proving explosives were planted unprofessionally is still something as yet unproven

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by ergo

Bazant seems to have no semantic confusion over the term "footprint". He seems to be indicating, as I have repeatedly, that footprint refers to the site upon which the building stood. The fact that the towers shed massive chunks of themselves onto surrounding buildings also doesn't change his judgment that the towers fell essentially straight down onto their footprints. Yet bee dunkers insist that any building that has ejected chunks of itself onto neighbouring buildings cannot be said to have fallen straight down, and therefore did not fall onto, or into, their footprints!

So which is it? And if Bazant is correct in his judgment, why does Dave Thomas argue that architects and engineers don't know what a footprint is?

"Essentially" would not include those ejected parts. From looking at high res pics of GZ, I would say the majority of the building parts came to rest outside of the actual footprints for at least 1 and 2WTC, agreed? 7WTC had a good portion of material that came to rest out of it's original footprint as well.

AE911 uses the term to indicate the collapses were way less chaotic than they actually were and implies they came to rest in a fashion that would be more indicative of a man made CD rather than natural collapse due to plane strikes and the resulting fires.

Gravity dictates that things fall straight down. Engineers dictate where they come to rest.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by ergo

Still waiting to hear how a building falling onto its footprint is significantly different from a building falling into its footprint

You were given a picture by Gorgonian that expressed the difference. It was simple. Just a few lines and some fuzz. A third grader would have understood it. Why can't you?

Here it is again:

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

From looking at high res pics of GZ, I would say the majority of the building parts came to rest outside of the actual footprints for at least 1 and 2WTC, agreed?

I don't know if I would say "the majority". I would say a significant amount. Interesting that you admit this, though, as the Bazant model needs a significant mass to drive crush down for the towers. Which is why he describes a fall "essentially" onto their footprints.

Quote:

7WTC had a good portion of material that came to rest out of it's original footprint as well.

It merely spilled off the pile that was sitting on top of the building site. There is no indication of significant amounts of debris in the streets that don't immediately border the building site. Not even close to the kinds of debris ejected by the towers. Very, very different. Both not resembling any natural collapses we've ever seen.

Quote:

AE911 uses the term to indicate the collapses were way less chaotic than they actually were and implies they came to rest in a fashion that would be more indicative of a man made CD rather than natural collapse due to plane strikes and the resulting fires. Gravity dictates that things fall straight down. Engineers dictate where they come to rest.

Again, the argument isn't about where the debris came to rest, but how the buildings descended. Again, I would agree that how the towers self-destructed does not look like a gravitational collapse, and is very different from how the 7 collapsed, which was essentially onto its footprint. As for the towers, most people who don't have hours of free time to pore over WTC videos on the internet are going by what they saw on the news footage: lateral views that show the building descending straight down and then disappearing into massive clouds of dust. Even the street view footage looking up at WTC2 seemingly shows the initial descent of the upper block coming down on top of the rest of the building, then it disappears into a cloud of dust that continues its descent down.

This would be why popular opinion is that the towers came straight down. Plus, they didn't topple over, so how else are you going to describe it? AE architects and engineers using the "straight down into its footprint" description are no doubt describing what was seen on TV, and may also be taking their cue from Bazant's description. Can't blame them. It's essentially true. Any argument to the contrary is merely nitpicking and is essentially false.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ergo

Still waiting to hear how a building falling onto its footprint is significantly different from a building falling into its footprint, as I don't believe there's anyone here attempting to argue that debris from CDed or imploded buildings always remains tidily within the building's footprint. I think everyone understands that this would be physically impossible.

Bee dunkers seem to now be agreeing that both the towers and WTC 7 fell essentially onto their footprints, borrowing Bazant's description. This means they fell essentially straight down, confirmed by brazenlilraisin and Wildcat:






But a review of quotes from the thread where this question originally arose, Q's about AE911T, shows a decidedly different argument, one that appears to directly contradict what Bazant states about the towers, which is:

Source

Bazant seems to have no semantic confusion over the term "footprint". He seems to be indicating, as I have repeatedly, that footprint refers to the site upon which the building stood. The fact that the towers shed massive chunks of themselves onto surrounding buildings also doesn't change his judgment that the towers fell essentially straight down onto their footprints. Yet bee dunkers insist that any building that has ejected chunks of itself onto neighbouring buildings cannot be said to have fallen straight down, and therefore did not fall onto, or into, their footprints!

So which is it? And if Bazant is correct in his judgment, why does Dave Thomas argue that architects and engineers don't know what a footprint is?

In that case the collapse was gravity driven/ no CD's.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Originally Posted by ergo

If you've been reading the threads, my point has obviously been that Dave Thomas' criticism of AETruth signatories, people who have far more experience and training than he has, is utterly lame and has never been supported. He also has been trying repeatedly to claim, for reasons still unknown, that WTC7 did not fall into or onto its footprint, i.e., that it didn't fall straight down.
...

and

Originally Posted by ergo

...Bazant seems to have no semantic confusion over the term "footprint". He seems to be indicating, as I have repeatedly, that footprint refers to the site upon which the building stood. The fact that the towers shed massive chunks of themselves onto surrounding buildings also doesn't change his judgment that the towers fell essentially straight down onto their footprints. Yet bee dunkers insist that any building that has ejected chunks of itself onto neighbouring buildings cannot be said to have fallen straight down, and therefore did not fall onto, or into, their footprints!

So which is it? And if Bazant is correct in his judgment, why does Dave Thomas argue that architects and engineers don't know what a footprint is?

I have a hypothesis as to why ergo has been playing this mind-numbing tap-dance over dozens of pages on multiple threads. See the highlighted comments above? I think I've come up with some observations about AE911truthiness that even ergo realizes demolish that organization's credibility. That's why it's been tossing out non-sequiter responses, moving the goalposts, the whole nine yards: I think my observations are really making it worried! That's why it's been posting one desperate diversion after another! (And check his responses to this post for confirmation!)

That means this whole "credibility of AE911Truth" question is worth a little additional analysis and commentary.

Let's begin with a screen capture from earlier today; remember, this is from the front page of AE911truthiness, after they've been refining their message and arguments for five years.

Note the red-outlined portions. The Twin Towers' destruction is claimed to exhibit "all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives", while WTC7 exhibited "all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives".

So there's one major difference between the Twin Towers and WTC 7 according to AE911truth: the former showed "destruction by explosives", while the latter showed "classic controlled demolition" with explosives.

Additionally, the Twin Towers are said to exhibit the characteristics of destruction by explosives because of their "Improbable symmetry of debris distribution", while WTC 7 was said to exhibit classic controlled demolition with explosives because it "imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint."

It's quite clear, AE911Truthiness says the Twin Towers were demolished because of the improbable symmetry of debris distribution ("too" symmetrical, and outside the footprint, obviously), while Tower 7 was demolished because it "imploded into its own footprint."

So the first bit of pseudoscientific sleight-of-hand shows that all roads lead to 9/11 truthiness: whether debris falls outside the footprint, or inside, it's a demoliton!

But wait, there's more.

Was the distribution of debris outside the Twin Towers "symmetrical"? Not at all!

The firm Weidlinger Associates Inc. (WAI) was hired by the ownwers of the WTC to determine if the tower collapses were one or two insurable "events." If Tower 1 was toppled over by Tower 2, for example, the insurance company would pay for only one event. If the collapses were independent, however, two events would have to be covered. WAI, in their detailed analysis titled "World Trade Center - Structural Engineering Investigation," produced detailed maps of the debris distribution. Because the perimeter walls peeled off from the walls along the four sides of each building, there was a natural 4-leaf-clover pattern to the debris pileups. But, there was significant asymmetry. Where a tower leaned over a bit during the collapse, debris was pushed farther from the towers. Also, the debris footprint of Tower 1 is 20 to 25% larger than that for tower two, because one plane hit Tower 1 near the 96th floor, while Tower 2 was hit around the 80th floor. Tower 1's debris had farther to fall, and logically was spread out wider. Incidentally, the reason Tower 2 collapsed first is that the greater mass of the upper section above the plane impact floors put more load on the stressed structure, making it fail quicker.

That's not symmetry. I've known symmetry a long time, and I've worked with symmetry, and that's not symmetry!

So, did WTC 7 fall "into" its footprint? Did it "fall straight down"? Clearly, no, as has been shown again and again to tap-dancer ergo:

Anyway, now that it's been definitively established that AE911Truth is very, very confused, let's look at the actual statements of several of their vaulted 1400 "architects and engineers."

From the "ENGINEERS ONLY" page of their petition endorsers:

(Pay special attention to whether these engineers say the towers fell into or onto their footprints!)

Quote:

L. Alan Pyeatt
P.E.
Lic: C56857 CA (Civil Engineer)
B.S.C.E.
Malibu, CA
The fact that both towers collapsed in their footprints, without any toppling of the upper floors, clearly indicates controlled demolition as the cause of the buildings' collapse, rather than structural failure.

Quote:

Clark W. Townsend
Civil Engineer
Lic: C47921 CA
BSCE CSU-Fort Collins, Colorado
Sacramento, CA
The Official story does not appear to be supported by the evidence. It would appear much more likely that demolition brought down the twin towers and building 7 than the burning jet fuel. The fact that the floors and columns came down so fast and in the same footprint along with the chemical analysis of the molten metal indicate the buildings were very likely brought down by controlled demolition.

Quote:

Lester D. Baker
Consulting Professional Civil Engineer
Lic: Utah- PE=143426,, Wyo.- PE=1317, Ida. PE/LS=2282
BSCE Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah, 1954
Ogden, UT
When a bldg drops/falls at "free fall" speed, it means to me that the floor above did not "help", or cause the collapse of the next floor below (that would have caused a "short" delay). It means to me that there was "no resistance, or delay" by the floor below and therefore that floors below had already failed "completely" before the upper floor could get there. Each and every floor failed "TIMELY". Only a well-controlled "Implosion" could do this 110 times in a row. And it was repeated for 2 more buildings (another 110 stories and then on another 47 story building.)
I suspect that if any of the floors had failed untimely (too soon or too late), it would have caused a totally different "failure scenario". Both would likely have missed the "footprint" below.

Quote:

Michael D. Moore
P.E.
Lic: 16567 PE
B.S. Civil Eng Tech, MSU-Northern
Havre, MT
I remember watching the footage that morning on television and thinking what a coincidence the first building fell into its footprint and discussed with my roommates the odds of that phenomenon. When the second building came down in its footprint, it was obvious to me foul play was involved. As information came out, including a British newscast with a reporter who received report Building 7 had just went down before it actually went down, I've become convinced further investigation must occur.

Quote:

Robert Sheldon Nelson
P.E.
Lic: M21495 CA
BSME, UC Berkeley
Canyon, CA
It makes no sense that steel structures would collapse symmetrically into their own footprint at free fall speeds due to an airplane hit. In the case of Building 7, there is no apparent cause for collapse. Controlled demolition using thermite appears to be a much more likely explanation for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Quote:

Ronald W. Southard
P.E.
Lic: #13807 CO
B. Arch E. & B.S. E. Ops-Constr; ISU '68
Buena Vista, CO
After watching the precision with which the towers collapsed, I was then, and remain today, of the opinion that it was a controlled demo job. I did calculations at the time estimating that the rubble pile was much too small...material had to disappear/ vaporize in order for the pile to be as small as it was. Conservatively, the pile of rubble would have to have been about 30 stories deep (including accounting for the 7 stories below grade being packed tight with debris, no air spaces!); a 'pyramid' with a base of 600 ft square. Anyone who has ever witnessed a controlled demolition would have immediately recognized its 'signature in this collapse. Not likely to cut off all of the columns on only one side of the building and still have it come down vertically, virtually within its own footprint, like it did.

Quote:

Derek Schenavar
P.E., Principal Engineer
Lic: PE63858
BSCE, University Central Florida
West Palm Beach, FL
WTC 7 - Controlled Demolition
WTC North and South - Even if the impact from the planes and subsequent fire were able to weaken the main structural components of the towers there is no possibility for them to fall in their own footprint, at the speed of gravity, nonetheless.

Quote:

Sherman J. Handberg
B. Mechanical Engineering
Duluth, MN
After the planes hit, I thought: Well, that looks repairable. The twin towers stood up to the impacts well. The fires were smokey, but didn't look hot at all. I thought it was fishy when the towers collapsed, but eventually put it in the past. Until I saw one or two 9/11 videos and absorbed some facts, like the 9.5 seconds it took for the buildings to collapse (free fall speed); the molten steel in all 3 basements 6 weeks after 9/11; the way the lobbies were blown apart and the injuries people had from HIGH VELOCITY explosions. Jet fuel might make a low velocity explosion, but it wouldn't blow people's skin off. Building 7's steel beams were incredibly massive because of the electrical substation below it. They wouldn't allow it to collapse the way it did, without high explosives. We would've seen some unsymmetrical partial collapse somewhere among those 3 buildings, not 3 perfect collapses into their own footprints.

Quote:

Brandon Cole Davis
B.S., Mech. Engineering, LeTourneau U.
Longview, TX
The towers falling at near the acceleration of gravity into their own footprint.

Quote:

Russell Felt
BChE, JD University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN
It is inconceivable that three steel skyscrapers would fall in their own footprints at nearly free fall speed without the cause being a controlled demolition. An energy balance defies the official story of a gravitational fall caused by jet fuel fires. The evidence of molten metal, horizontal projection of steel beams and the pulverization of the buildings and their contents cannot be explained by the official story. Our country has been asleep and our democracy depends on learning the truth.

Quote:

Alan Nakamura
BSME, BSCE
Gardena, CA
I initially accepted the heating-theory when the WTC buildings collapsed because it sounded plausible at first glance and I didn't feel any compulsion to examine or think about it any further. However, upon seeing Loose Change, Fabled Enemies, and listening to the makers of those videos in person and listening to Richard Gage in person and referencing it to my background in structures and thermal dynamics, it became apparent to me that this was yet another fiasco/cover up ala Oklahoma City.
...
Even if a steel building could collapse due to heat, with a RANDOM fire heating solid structural steel RANDOMLY, I would expect a RANDOM failure leaving some columns collapsed, some columns twisted, some columns bending off to the side, and many columns still standing straight up in the air - NOT a TOTAL crumbling collapse into a nice neat footprint into the ground! Only a planned and focused demolition using explosives set at key structural locations throughout the building could cause this.

Quote:

Attila M. Revesz
Senior Member of IEEE and Senior Member of AIAA
MSEE, Techn. Univ. of Budapest, Hungary
Los Angeles, CA
Watching the rapid and symmetrical collpase [sic] of the building to its own footprint contradicts the official story. The sound of explosion at ground level shortly prior to collapse suggests controlled demolition.

Quote:

Charles Goyette
Engineering Staff
B.S.M.E., B.S.E.E., MEd Math
Austin, TX
The most blatant evidence that virtually anyone can understand with the help of a high school science background or reasonable common sense and intelligence is the fact that a modern steel-framed building cannot collapse at free-fall speed on its original footprint without the help of high explosives. The collapse of Building 7 especially defies any other remotely plausible explanation.

Quote:

Randall Manyen
Mechanical Engineer
BSME
Houston, TX
Neither the collisions, explosions or the subsequent fires were sufficient to cause the Twin Towers to collapse at freefall speed into their own footprints. The official story also does not explain the collapse of Building 7.

Quote:

Andrew Millikin
Engineering Consultant
Electrical Engineering
Laurel, MD
Clearly, the buildings fell by controlled demolition. Buildings don't just magically fall down into their own footprint. The nano-thermite in the dust from the collapse is proof.

Quote:

Albert Gearing
BSEE-Electronics Option U of Illinios
Burleson, TX
As I watched the TV of the planes hitting and the collapse of the towers and Bldg 7, I said to my wife, "They were imploded." To me it was obvious that was the case, because they came down in their own footprint.

Quote:

Kevin Cullinan
Engineering Staff
B.S. Engineering, UC Davis
Sacramento, CA
All 3 Trade buildings fell in approximately the same way (e.g., the time to fall, and the footprint in which they it fell into), despite varying degrees of damage. Of the two buildings that sustained "similar" damage (i.e. the twin towers), the last building hit fell first, after 54 minutes. The other building fell after 100 minutes, despite that these building were subjected to similar forces. These anomalies warrant further investigation.

Quote:

David J. Simchock
BS, Mechanical Engineering, Rutgers U.
Titusville, NJ
Steel-framed buildings do not collapse at near-free-fall speed neatly into their own footprints due to mere fires. This never happened in the history of the world prior to 9-11-01, and it hasn't happened since. But, on that fateful day, it happened three times within a matter of hours (and, one of the buildings wasn't hit by a jet airliner, so its collapse cannot be blamed on "jet fuel"). I want to know how this really happened, and how the presence of military-grade nano-thermite can be explained in the Ground Zero debris.

I want to know the TRUTH.

Quote:

Kent Watsen
Engineering, University of Virginia
Leesburg, VA
It is unbelievable that these buildings fell into their own footprint without assistance. I don't understand how jet-fuel could burn hot enough to cause "thermal expansion" or how Building 7, which wasn't even hit by a plane, could fall from an ordinary fire?

Quote:

Alexander Tzetzo
PhD, CFI-A, CFI-I, MEI; B.S., M.S., PhD Aerosp
Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering
Hicksville, NY
All three buildings "collapse" at a high rate straight down into their base footprint areas. There are many news clips where repeated explosions can be heard before the buildings "collapse". There are many news clips where police and fire personnel state that there were many explosions before the buildings "collapsed". The owner of the WTC buildings states during an interview that he gave the order to "pull" WTC 7 hours after the planes hit the other two towers. It takes days of preparation to "pull" a building like WTC 7. BBC reported that WTC 7 "collapsed" before it was actually demolished. The "official" story is nonsense.

There you have it. One engineer after another, getting it "wrong" - saying that the Twin Towers were demolished, not because of the "improbable symmetry of debris", but because the Twin Towers fell "into theor own footprints" (all except Goyette, the only engineer saying they fell on their footprint.)

What does all this show? That Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truthiness are, indeed, very very confused!

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

and


I have a hypothesis as to why ergo has been playing this mind-numbing tap-dance over dozens of pages on multiple threads. See the highlighted comments above? I think I've come up with some observations about AE911truthiness that even ergo realizes demolish that organization's credibility. That's why it's been tossing out non-sequiter responses, moving the goalposts, the whole nine yards: I think my observations are really making it worried! That's why it's been posting one desperate diversion after another! (And check his responses to this post for confirmation!)

....

There you have it. One engineer after another, getting it "wrong" - saying that the Twin Towers were demolished, not because of the "improbable symmetry of debris", but because the Twin Towers fell "into theor own footprints" (all except Goyette, the only engineer saying they fell on their footprint.)

What does all this show? That Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truthiness are, indeed, very very confused!

Very well done, Dave! I agree that Ergo's attempts to deflect away from the AE911Truth problems are quite obvious, in retrospect.

I would add, as I have observed many times, that there is a similar confusion regarding the collapse 'at' or 'near' freefall speed. According to
Lester D. Baker,Consulting Professional Civil Engineer ,for example, 'When a bldg drops/falls at "free fall" speed, it means to me that the floor above did not "help", or cause the collapse of the next floor below (that would have caused a "short" delay)....Only a well-controlled "Implosion" could do this 110 times in a row. And it was repeated for 2 more buildings (another 110 stories and then on another 47 story building.)'

He is literally claiming that all 3 buildings fell at freefall acceleration. He is wrong, of course, so how credible is the long list of architects and engineers?

Not very...

They have hung their collective hats on both collapse landing 'in the footprint' and 'at freefall speed', and since they are wrong, their claims are also likewise invalidated. It really is that simple, ergo, the trolling will continue

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by alienentity

He is literally claiming that all 3 buildings fell at freefall acceleration. He is wrong, of course, so how credible is the long list of architects and engineers?

The problem isn't as much in them claiming the buildings fell at "freefall" as it is that they completely **** up conservation of momentum to make the argument. It's much worse than them misusing vocabulary.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

The problem isn't as much in them claiming the buildings fell at "freefall" as it is that they completely **** up conservation of momentum to make the argument. It's much worse than them misusing vocabulary.

That too.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

and

I have a hypothesis as to why ergo has been playing this mind-numbing tap-dance over dozens of pages on multiple threads. See the highlighted comments above? I think I've come up with some observations about AE911truthiness that even ergo realizes demolish that organization's credibility. That's why it's been tossing out non-sequiter responses, moving the goalposts, the whole nine yards: I think my observations are really making it worried! That's why it's been posting one desperate diversion after another! (And check his responses to this post for confirmation!)

That means this whole "credibility of AE911Truth" question is worth a little additional analysis and commentary.

Let's begin with a screen capture from earlier today; remember, this is from the front page of AE911truthiness, after they've been refining their message and arguments for five years.

http://www.nmsr.org/ae911cont.jpg

Note the red-outlined portions. The Twin Towers' destruction is claimed to exhibit "all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives", while WTC7 exhibited "all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives".

So there's one major difference between the Twin Towers and WTC 7 according to AE911truth: the former showed "destruction by explosives", while the latter showed "classic controlled demolition" with explosives.

Additionally, the Twin Towers are said to exhibit the characteristics of destruction by explosives because of their "Improbable symmetry of debris distribution", while WTC 7 was said to exhibit classic controlled demolition with explosives because it "imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint."

It's quite clear, AE911Truthiness says the Twin Towers were demolished because of the improbable symmetry of debris distribution ("too" symmetrical, and outside the footprint, obviously), while Tower 7 was demolished because it "imploded into its own footprint."

So the first bit of pseudoscientific sleight-of-hand shows that all roads lead to 9/11 truthiness: whether debris falls outside the footprint, or inside, it's a demoliton!

But wait, there's more.

Was the distribution of debris outside the Twin Towers "symmetrical"? Not at all!

The firm Weidlinger Associates Inc. (WAI) was hired by the ownwers of the WTC to determine if the tower collapses were one or two insurable "events." If Tower 1 was toppled over by Tower 2, for example, the insurance company would pay for only one event. If the collapses were independent, however, two events would have to be covered. WAI, in their detailed analysis titled "World Trade Center - Structural Engineering Investigation," produced detailed maps of the debris distribution. Because the perimeter walls peeled off from the walls along the four sides of each building, there was a natural 4-leaf-clover pattern to the debris pileups. But, there was significant asymmetry. Where a tower leaned over a bit during the collapse, debris was pushed farther from the towers. Also, the debris footprint of Tower 1 is 20 to 25% larger than that for tower two, because one plane hit Tower 1 near the 96th floor, while Tower 2 was hit around the 80th floor. Tower 1's debris had farther to fall, and logically was spread out wider. Incidentally, the reason Tower 2 collapsed first is that the greater mass of the upper section above the plane impact floors put more load on the stressed structure, making it fail quicker.

http://www.nmsr.org/tower2_dmg.jpg

http://www.nmsr.org/tower1_dmg.jpg

That's not symmetry. I've known symmetry a long time, and I've worked with symmetry, and that's not symmetry!

So, did WTC 7 fall "into" its footprint? Did it "fall straight down"? Clearly, no, as has been shown again and again to tap-dancer ergo:

http://www.nmsr.org/Fiterman_hall_damage_small.jpg

Anyway, now that it's been definitively established that AE911Truth is very, very confused, let's look at the actual statements of several of their vaulted 1400 "architects and engineers."

From the "ENGINEERS ONLY" page of their petition endorsers:

(Pay special attention to whether these engineers say the towers fell into or onto their footprints!)

....

There you have it. One engineer after another, getting it "wrong" - saying that the Twin Towers were demolished, not because of the "improbable symmetry of debris", but because the Twin Towers fell "into theor own footprints" (all except Goyette, the only engineer saying they fell on their footprint.)

What does all this show? That Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truthiness are, indeed, very very confused!

Thank you for finally coming out of the closet and stating exactly what your objections are. Preserved for utter jaw-dropping incredibility. At least I know I wasn't misinterpreting what you were saying. It's pretty clear you have absolutely no credible argument. Will address a bit later.