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

[ergo]

Your logic just astounds.

So new, and yet, already ripe for Ignore.

[JohnG]

ergo: So you're sticking with the whole "Bee dunker" thing, after all this time, huh? It's the sort of thing an overtired four year old would find hilarious after eating too many fudgesicles. What about "Debonkers"? It's funny, mocking, childish, even, but streets ahead of "Bee Dunkers". Even your fellow Truthers are quietly facepalming over that one.

"Debonkers"...you know, for kids!

[Dragon37]

Here is a colour shot of 7 WTC. Note that cleanup is well underway but you can plainly see that there is rubble right up against Fitterman Hall and even some by the SW corner. As well, there is lots of rubble on the roof of Fitterman.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by ergo

Where do you see the bulk of the rubble centered over?

Originally Posted by ergo

It's also because: where else are you going to put 47 storeys of broken building??

Here's a question for you: if it had collapsed due to the fires, where would you have expected the debris to be centered?

Surely, if you think the debris pile is somehow suspicious, it's because you've actually thought about what it should have looked like, right? So tell us what you think it should have looked like, and why you think that.

[Thunder]

Devil's Advocate question:

"does it really matter if WTC 7 fell completely into its footprint...or mostly into its footprint?

cause it sure does look like the great majority of debris from WTC 7 fell into its footprint."

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by Dragon37

Here is a colour shot of 7 WTC. Note that cleanup is well underway but you can plainly see that there is rubble right up against Fitterman Hall and even some by the SW corner. As well, there is lots of rubble on the roof of Fitterman.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...erial_wtc7.jpg

Take a look to your right, 30 W Broadway (Fiterman Hall). Lots of damage and debris quite a few stories up.

Ergo earlier made this claim, that the damage was caused by either a few bits of flying debris or 'debris falling down the rubble pile'.

Now then. Look at the 'rubble pile' and explain how all that material embedded in Fiterman 'fell down' the rubble pile, crossed the street, and went deposited several tons several stories up.

That's some mighty strange 'fall'. I think we need a new investigation into truther claims. They seem to be based on lies. We want the truth now!!!

ETA Why won't truthers release the full camera angles which would show exactly how WTC 7 fell onto Fiterman? What are they trying to hide?
There must've been hundreds of security cameras there, but truthers won't let us see them. Bastards!!

[alienentity]

deleted, duplicate post

[adkinsjr]

Originally Posted by JohnG

ergo: So you're sticking with the whole "Bee dunker" thing, after all this time, huh?

I don't know, it's really getting to me. It hurts me to be called "bee dunker." It sounds like debunker, but he's saying "bee" and "dunker" instead for some reason. It's so clever, yet so mean. How can he be this cruel to us?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by ergo

That's because you drew the outline too small.

I used a map overlay to get the proportions of the building. If it's too small it's by the odd millimeter. It's not significant as I also drew the rubble area very conservatively.

Originally Posted by ergo

It's also because: where else are you going to put 47 storeys of broken building??

In the building's footprint according to twoofers.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Here's a question for you: if it had collapsed due to the fires, where would you have expected the debris to be centered?

Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing. Any collapse of the building would be over its footprint, unless something pushed it over.

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.

Quote:

Surely, if you think the debris pile is somehow suspicious, it's because you've actually thought about what it should have looked like, right? So tell us what you think it should have looked like, and why you think that.

I don't think the debris pile is suspicious. It is right over the building site. You know....where the building was?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by alienentity

Take a look to your right, 30 W Broadway (Fiterman Hall). Lots of damage and debris quite a few stories up.

I have a picture right here.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by ergo

Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing. Any collapse of the building would be over its footprint, unless something pushed it over.

(My bold)

I'm sure you can prove this, right?

Originally Posted by ergo

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.

You should probably get your fellow twoofers to change their claim to "collapsed smoothly and symmetrically as a whole to the ground" instead of "collapsed smoothly and symmetrically as a whole into its own footprint" then, because saying that WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint is dead wrong as we have established.

The other parts are of course wrong as well, but it's kind of hard to change the lie that a whole cult is built upon without consequences.

ETA: Also STUNDIED!

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by ergo

Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing.

Really?

Cite your source for this gem?

ETA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee9hUynD4S8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5lY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUod...eature=related

http://www.fireengineering.com/index...-collapse.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvSl3iEMp_o

I think you might need to go to bed.



ETA2: You have 3 stundie noms today Ergo. And you call ME stundie prone!! LOL!!!

[ergo]

Originally Posted by uke2se

(My bold)

I'm sure you can prove this, right?

Really? You want to go through this again? You guys didn't exactly come out looking so sharp there.

Quote:

You should probably get your fellow twoofers to change their claim to "collapsed smoothly and symmetrically as a whole to the ground" instead of "collapsed smoothly and symmetrically as a whole into its own footprint" then, because saying that WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint is dead wrong as we have established.

"Collapsed into its footprint" is easier to say, obviously. And it's true. Unless you can tell us where the rest of the building vanished to??

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by ergo

"Collapsed into its footprint" is easier to say, obviously. And it's true. Unless you can tell us where the rest of the building vanished to??

how about "collapsed mostly inside its footprint".

[ergo]

Unnecessary verbiage. "Footprint" is fine. Everyone outside of the footprint theory cult understands that it means the spot upon which the building stood.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

ETA2: You have 3 stundie noms today Ergo. And you call ME stundie prone!! LOL!!!

Yeah? Are they all by you?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by ergo

Unnecessary verbiage. "Footprint" is fine. Everyone outside of the footprint theory cult understands that it means the spot upon which the building stood.

was this cult started yesterday or the day before yesterday?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by ergo

Unnecessary verbiage. "Footprint" is fine. Everyone outside of the footprint theory cult understands that it means the spot upon which the building stood.

Oh, so you're just trying to save words? Well then,

Originally Posted by ergo

Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing.

...why don't you just say, "It collapsed"? That'll save you the four extra words "into its own footprint".


Oh, wait, I know, it's because that claim....

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Really?

Cite your source for this gem?

ETA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee9hUynD4S8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5lY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUod...eature=related

http://www.fireengineering.com/index...-collapse.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvSl3iEMp_o

I think you might need to go to bed.



ETA2: You have 3 stundie noms today Ergo. And you call ME stundie prone!! LOL!!!

...is so clearly insane that even you don't want to have to explain it to the people your cult is proselyting.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by ergo

Buildings don't collapse from fire,

actually, sometimes buildings just collapse from old age and deterioration.

[ergo]

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

[TheRedWorm]

Shotgun? How does it work, twoofer?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by ergo

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

err.......a little 411 for ya:

both towers were hit by fully-fueled 757s.

and the other building had unfought raging fires for hours.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by ergo

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

Fully occupied and operational office buildings. Have never been demolished. With explosives. Before, during, or since 9/11.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by ergo

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

No no no, you're supposed to restrict it to "high-rise buildings", otherwise we'll point out that you're lying again.

Quote:

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

Quote:

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

[ergo]

Roof collapses are not building collapses. Sorry.

And we're off topic.

[TheRedWorm]

Shotguns! You've avoided the topic since I first brought it up. Afraid?

[ergo]

No idea what you're talking about, RedWorm, and you're probably off topic anyway.

[The Platypus]

Originally Posted by ergo

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

As is typical for drones that recite this old bit of brainwashed rhetoric, they always purposely omit the damage from the commercial airliners crashing and exploding, or the falling debris, or that the fires were not fought. Why leave these out if your not trying to fool people?

Besides, even if it was the "first time", that proves absolutely nothing. Everything has a "first time" it ever happened... so what...

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by ergo

No idea what you're talking about, RedWorm, and you're probably off topic anyway.

You know what I am talking about. Just because you cowardice won't permit you to answer, yet your hubris won't let the question to go unchallenged is not my problem.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by ergo

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

I hear the strenuous grunts of a child pushing and dragging goal posts emanating from this post...

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by ergo

You're so tricky and clever!!

Only comparatively

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

I hear the strenuous grunts of a child pushing and dragging goal posts emanating from this post...

Right, because the WTC buildings were ... not steel-framed? They .... didn't collapse completely? And the explanation was something other than fire ?? And the time frame we're talking about doesn't include any time prior to or since 9/11?

What goalposts did you think were there?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by ergo

Right, because the WTC buildings were ... not steel-framed? They .... didn't collapse completely? And the explanation was something other than fire ?? And the time frame we're talking about doesn't include any time prior to or since 9/11?

What goalposts did you think were there?

None, until you pushed them there. That there may be a field where you replanted your goalposts is irrelevant to the fact that the goalposts were not in that location when you started babbling.

You do understand what "moving the goalposts" means, don't you? (Hint: It doesn't mean "saying something factually incorrect".)

[The Platypus]

Again he goes with just the "fire" and nothing else...

Keep working the con...

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by ergo

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

Really?

Kader Toy Factory
We've gone through this before. You keep losing. Why must you continue?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by ergo

Yeah? Are they all by you?

Not a single one.

Correction: Tempe has 3, you have 2.

[Grizzly Bear]

Quote:

Buildings don't collapse from fire

Oh.... bless, doesn't this sound familiar?

Originally Posted by bob the analyst

it's because fire can never harm steel

or this:

Originally Posted by bob the analyst

quite true, anyone that ever took a science class past the 4th grade level knows that a hydro-carbon fire can and will never harm steel

and who could possibly forgot this gem:

Originally Posted by bob the analyst

hydro carbon fire, certainly has no affect on steel, as a long time member of the engineering community in the transportaion field, when have you ever seen a car caught on fire or has been burnt on fire?

the steel--chassis-powertrain.steering and suspension all remain whole and intact, despite the fuel tank exploding

you people should be beyond this level or point by now...fire can not and will not harm steel as the wtc saw it


it takes over 4,000 dgerees of consstant and fed temperatures to make steel unstable and this takes numerous hours, over 12 hours in an electric arc, gas or ingot oven.

It's scary how similar the posts are, but probably more tragic than anything. I'd almost be willing to bet he'd believe even the nuttiness, the likes of non-DEW/Deathbeam no-planers that the forum hasn't seen for at least two years... My god...

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Oystein

The thread title...

...is a lie.

The cake is a lie as well, according to some graffiti I saw scrawled onto a wall...

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

...
"Collapsed into its footprint" is easier to say, obviously. And it's true.

As easy to say and as true as "I am the Emperor of China"

Originally Posted by ergo

Unless you can tell us where the rest of the building vanished to??

The rest of the building "vanished" (that's ergo-english for "ended up clearly visibly in ergo's photos)" on Vesey, Barcley and Washington Streets, West Broadway, and the premises of Verizon, Fiterman, USPO and WTC7. Some of it inside and on top of two of other buildings. Waaaay outside the footprint, iow.